Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 17

March 17

Category:Princesses Esterházy of Galántha

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one princess in here, which isn't really helpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 23:09, 17 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:Number-one singles in San Marino

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) 04:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for a chart which does not meet the requires of WP:RECORDCHARTS. The chart is not to be used as it is WP:SINGLEVENDOR and therefore not a good chart for use on wikipedia >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean the use of the chart should not be used in the chart tables for which it is listed? Regardless, this is not a defining characteristic for any of the songs in the category, so delete. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:55, 28 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.

Years in art → Years in visual arts

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 - And please let's keep discussions WP:CIVIL. - jc37 19:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more years
more decades
more centuries
Nominator's rationale: The naming of the branch Category:Art by year (co-existing next to Category:Arts by year) is a long-standing mess that needs fixing. The 'in art' categories have long been implied and actually meant 'in visual arts' on WP. This is backed up by the messages in the root categories Category:Art history and Category:Art history (both literally been saying for a long time there that this whole tree is about visual arts). And the occasional renaming of the root categories such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_21#Visual_arts . The content itself also confirms this, in 95%+ of cases the content is about visual arts.
In previous renames there have been arguments that 'art' can refer to specific works, like the Mona Lisa. But we already have a separate branch for this purpose: Category:Works by year, which also includes more detailed subcategories. And if we take 'art' to mean 'work of art', it would rather be a duplicate of that branch. Whereas now 'art' rather implies a sphere rather than works, judging by the fact that it contains established/closed museums and also awards. Another argument against renaming is that 'art' is a subset of 'the arts', which could include 'sound art' and 'conceptual art'. But this is also a dubious argument for separating the two branches by year throughout history. I don't think it's an optimal idea to have a special category within '2020 in the arts' to put something that can cover 'visual arts' and 'sound art', just because the word 'art' can be applied to it. It would be more correct and easier to navigate to have more distinct and unambiguous groups. Visual arts is one, and 'sound art' can be moved up one level to 'the arts'. And making a division based on that thought is more confusing than helpful. Speaking of ambiguity, currently we put 'artists' into 'in art', in which we put musicians, while the music itself is not in 'art', but directly in 'the arts', that's also the problem of the splitting of the arts branch. And I would also like to mention that the current naming is causing big problems on wikidata, as people don't understand the difference, I spent all day yesterday clearing the category. About 6 languages connected their 'art' either to 'the arts' or to 'art' by 50/50 on enwiki. The difference is not only not significant, but also not understood globally (in the context of categorising subjects by year).
And by the way, if we keep the old titles, it would be more correct to make 'YYYY in art' a redirect to 'YYYY in the arts', rather than to visual arts. Solidest (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was partly already discussed in the previous discussion in the link from the first post. I think that each category should still be looked at separately there, since some things really only refer to visual arts, and some can apply to the arts. But I agree that after all the corrections, there should be no message that "art" on Wikipedia means only "visual arts". It should either be a more specific definition or just a redirect to the arts. And from the both points of view, keeping "art by year" branch, while we have "the arts by year" would be a bad idea, what will be perceived as duplication by most readers, as it currently is. Solidest (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Using the Category:Art history as a justification to rename these from "art" to "visual arts" is, well, rather self-contradictory. It's called "art history", not "visual arts history". Fram (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a justification, but another indication of how it is perceived and organized the whole time on WP. The justification is the pointlessness of maintaining two chronology branches under overlapping names at the same time and the listed problems this causes. The whole point is that before the early 20th century, these branches are simply duplicated. And from the 20th century onwards, there can only be potential differences in relation to sound/conceptual art. Generally speaking, it is apparent that the difference in such naming is only understood by a small number of people. And if you point out that this branch should be "YYYY in art history", then it would be a complete duplication of "YYYY in the arts" and then they need to be merged instead of being renamed. But I still prefer to judge them by their content rather than by the title of a single root category, which was only replaced a few years ago from the visual arts, while further content remains unchanged. Solidest (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Ham II (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Fram. It's called "art history" not "visual arts history," called an "art museum" not a "visual arts museum," an "art gallery" not a "visual arts gallery," an "art auction" not a "visual arts auction," an "art handler" not a "visual arts handler," etc. etc. etc. This is understood by a vast range of people. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Art history" chronology is covered by Category:Arts by year. Can you explain why we need the 2nd one? Vast range of people would not understand the difference between Category:2015 in art against Category:2015 in the arts. All the others "art x" you mentioned fully belong to the visual arts. The others that are not visual are music and literature. Are there any museums, galleries, auctions, handlers of music and literature? I can think of auctions or museums at most. But then "art auctions" and "art museums" should be moved under "the arts". Anything not related to visual arts should also be moved to the arts and I believe it's going to be just some individual cases. What's there to talk about if history of art article literally say in the first paragraph that it's about visual arts? And that's also what most people understand. Solidest (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the Art article:From the Art museum article:

Am I the only confused by this inconsistency and the apparent redundancy of duplicating "art" and "the arts" chronology categories? Solidest (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And from the Visual arts:

Can anyone find something critical that is in Category:Art by year that doesn't fit the visual arts definition above? Since I can't find anything, at all. (Except for the art museums branch, which as you can see from the its uncertain definition above should rather be moved to the arts for better accuracy). Solidest (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very first year I checked Category:2024_in_art contains Nature Manifesto. "Nature Manifesto is an Immersive sound piece and multimedia installation." An artwork that is primarily sound art would obviously not fit well in a category of "Visual Art." This obvious idea, that common art forms like conceptual art and sound art would not fit well in a category of "visual art", has already been stated. Asparagusstar (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not a critical case that justifies the existence of both branches. Instead, it is just an individual case that should be moved to “the arts”, as I said above. Judging by Category:Sound art, there will be no more than 5 such cases. Solidest (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2024_in_art also includes 2024 Whitney Biennial whose 2nd artist listed is Holland Andrews, working in sound art. Andrews "composed two sound works for the Biennial—one for the stairwell and the other for the large elevator nearby."[1] I have found both of these by literally clicking just two links in the category. There will of course be many more examples of this type of thing, because there is no basis for trying to limit "Art" to just "Visual Arts." This is not supported by any art institution or art publication. It may be helpful for you to look at an institution like the California Institute of the Arts (plural) and note that it is divided into multiple departments, including the "School of Art" (singular), and that "School of Art" includes courses in sound art.[2] As you can plainly see, it is perfectly normal to have a category for "The Arts" (plural) as well as a subcategory for just "Art" singular, and "Art" includes far more than just "Visual". Asparagusstar (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole situation is that you, like Fram are talking as if I am nominating for renaming entirely Category:Art and Category:Art history. But it isn't. The nomination is about chronological categories. The current division of each year into two creates more problems than good and is not understood by most people. I judge this practically, considering how many mistakes there have been on wikidata and they continue to be added daily [3] [4] People for the most part don't grasp the clear difference between the two concepts. That's why both in the category and in the articles we write that ‘Art’ is ‘Visual art’ + sometimes a bit more. While categories for decades exclude this "a bit more" and go for visual arts only (another example is Category:Artists). And this "a bit more" is not the justification to split every year into two. "A bit more" are actually narrow subspecies of art that are mostly 50 years old. Whereas we divide 600 categories of years, 80 decades, and 20+ centuries, just to put a little more precision into for this narrow types of art. And even here it is wrong to talk about precision (given the definitions from art and the arts), as it is rather a blurring of precision, which may well exist in art exhibitions and institute courses. But it would be strange to organise branches of years where one is for "the arts" and the other for something more "creative and artistically-experimental" as CalArts describes it. That's a rather an odd criterion for creating 700+ categories, and especially in the context of prehistoric, Medieval and other art periods. The fact that sound art exists is not a significant reason to split ‘2025 in the arts’ into ‘2025 in art’ + ‘2025 in music’ + ‘2025 in literature’, where the line between ‘the arts’ and ‘art’ is rather vague. Music is the art and literature is the art and sound art is the art. And they will all fit perfectly in ‘2025 in the arts’. While ‘2025 in art’ would be a redirect to this category as it's more blurred than the first one. And what really stands out by distinctive features and is not a vague group, and what is also supported by our articles as a clear separate group, is ‘visual arts’. And it would not be superfluous to repeat that the current content of ‘YYYY in art’ branch fits visual arts by 95%+, except for the minor 20th century cases you bring up, which will simply need to be moved up a level to ‘the arts’ after the renaming. Solidest (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not commenting about "renaming entirely Category:Art and Category:Art history." I am commenting precisely about the proposal to rename categories like Category:2024_in_art as "2024 in visual art." This is the third time I have linked to that category, because that is exactly what I am talking about. I am sorry to see this editor can't figure something this simple out. I did not read their latest wall of text past the first sentence as they don't seem to reading other's comments and instead trying to filibuster this conversation by mischaracterizing other's comments. I am not reading any further filibustering. If they haven't been able to make their point yet in their past seven comments, I don't think an eighth is going to help them. Good luck learning more about art and the arts. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a hard time even distilling what the arguments against the current system are in the opening post. Something like "Speaking of ambiguity, currently we put 'artists' into 'in art', in which we put musicians, while the music itself is not in 'art', but directly in 'the arts', that's also the problem of the splitting of the arts branch" is just wrong. Musicians are not in "art", they are in "arts". Category:Musicians is part of entertainers, which ends up in the "performing arts" branch: and it is part of "music people", which is in "People in arts occupations". I don't see anywhere where musicians are in an "in art" branch, but only where they are in an "in arts" branch. So it seems as if this whole proposal is based on some imaginary or incorrect premises and is solving a non-existent problem, requiring the editing of thousands of categories and articles. Fram (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate it if you don't turn your misunderstanding into gaslighting, thanks. [5][6] - here musicians were under "in art" before my edits and I've come across similar cases here and there at different times. Not to mention the fact that musicians are artists from the beginning and the reason why they are removed from art is because art is used as visual arts on WP, which is reflected in the messages in every other root category and in the hierarchy that is edited back and forth because of different points of view on this (you can see from the history of root categories). And it's also supported by the mass renaming of art to visual arts in the linked nomination. And this is also an argument - bringing it to a consistent look. Why are you pretending that discussion and mass renaming didn't happen? I feel like we going into a circles when I repeat the exact and primary reason for this nomination - the pointlessness of dividing each year and century into a broad definition and a narrow vague scope of the same word, with the only reason particular that the division only makes ghostly sense for the rare cases of the last 50 years (less than 10% of the sum). You give 0 attention to this key argument, but you keep going on about secondary. Can you give us at least one argument why we should divide every existing year prior to the 20th century into arts and art that forces us to not call music and literature art, and force the imprecise criterion of including that art=visual arts (which comes from the art article) so that people don't put music and literature in there on every 2nd root category? Whereas we have the option to explicitly write that it's visual arts, which completely prevents such a problem. Why do you keep ignoring that all current pre-20th century content in those categories is 100% visual arts? This is also a significant reasoning for renaming. I never heard an argument for why medieval art should be divided into art and arts rather than the more unambiguous arts and visual arts, but I did name a lot of problems with the art option in terms of categorization. “requiring the editing of thousands of categories and articles” is not an argument against correcting the imprecise, conventional, and problematic to the precise and unambiguous. (Not talking that most of the edits will be done by a bot or resolved with AWB). Solidest (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I would appreciate it if you don't turn your misunderstanding into gaslighting, thanks." And with that, I'm done responding to you. Fram (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see an apology, as "imaginary premises" sounded pretty specific in that context and not so correct, but as you wish. It's rather odd that your colleague in the position above also went personal when asked for an argument and quit. I can only regard that as a lack of argument. Solidest (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the whole discussion above:

  • Arguments for renaming:
  1. "in art" tree is ambiguous when it exists simultaneously with "in the arts" tree
    • "Art" is explicitly described as having no unambiguous definition and being perceived differently in different cultures in the article art
    • In the same article art is described primarily as visual arts, excluding music and literature
    • Art is described as including music and theatre in multiple external sources (random first googling results: [7][8][9]) (using the same definitions as in the article art).
    • There is no unambiguous opinion on the inclusions of some arts, even in the articles, e.g. performing arts in the Category:Performing arts belongs to "the arts", but in performance art is labelled as an "art" (and this is also confirmed by external sources [10]).
  2. Ambiguity is not allowed in systematic categorisation by criterion (by year)
    • The average editor, without context, will be convinced that "YYYY in art" should include any art, not a specific part of it. To realise otherwise, they must do some additional research in categories to find out that's Wikipedia perceives it as visual arts, and in articles to find out that's it's rather ambiguous.
  3. Categories require precision, so in practice "art" has been equated with "visual arts" for a long time now
    • Reflected in the current category hierarchy (mostly, but replaced in some places, see point 4)
    • Many root categories have the message that "art" categories should only contain "visual arts" and not music and literature
  4. The definition of "art" as "visual arts" remains contentious in the categories
    • Root categories are changed and returned periodically.
    • Excludes music and literature from "in art" and "artists", although according to many sources they should be in "art" and musicians are artists.
    • Different categories of "the arts" are sometimes mistakenly placed in the "art" branch, which are then removed, which also causes extra edits.
  5. Causes problems in related Wikimedia projects
    • Created a lot of confusion in Wikidata that keeps coming back
    • On Commons there is only a "YYYY in art" category where any forms of arts are placed, which also creates confusion. Commons decades remain linked to "in art".
  6. The division is irrelevant for historical categories
    • Until the mid-20th century, "art" completely = "visual arts".
  7. 95%+ of the content of nominated categories relates explicitly to "visual arts" only
  8. The most neutral solution we will be to make "in art" a redirect to "in the arts".
  • Arguments against renaming:
  1. "in art" branch is under "Art history", not "Visual arts history"
  2. Requiring the editing of thousands of categories and articles
  3. Sound art exists
  4. The placement of art museums/galleries, exhibitions and auctions is ambiguous.
  • Counterarguments to counterpoints:
  1. First, we should not confuse the academic discipline with "history of topic" category. Cheers to @Ham II who recently did the split between Category:Art history and Category:History of art. Chronological categories should apply to any arts. And an academic discipline shouldn't be categorized by year, since the current category content is mostly the works, not the studies. Second, "art history" traditionally means the history of visual arts. Even if the term "art" is sometimes used more broadly, in the academic tradition "art history" mainly studies painting, sculpture, architecture and other visual forms, which is also confirmed in the art history article. Modern institutions like CalArts have "School of Art" that have courses "Sound Art", but I don't see why that should have any effect on the year categories, since it's more a matter of root categories, and I also see it as rather another argument for "YYYY in art" being reworked into a redirect to "YYYY in the arts".
  2. Edits are automated, removing ambiguity now will prevent more edits in the future.
  3. Sound art is an exception and only appeared in 1975. Very few articles related to it can be moved to "the arts" without any problems. Judging by Category:Sound art, there will be about 5 of these. And the existence of 5 or more articles in 5% of the nominated categories is no excuse for duplicating 700 categories.
  4. In practice, 95% of these institutions and auctions belong to the visual arts. If an exhibition belongs to various arts, then it belongs to "the arts". The "art museum" branch should rather be moved to "the arts" as the problem is not that there might be sound art works, but that there is more likely to be something that relates to the broad arts (performing arts, music, literature, textiles). And also, conceptual art is already placed in the visual arts categories. Solidest (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WALLOFTEXT. Fram (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you yourself wrote that you still don't understand the reasons behind this nomination, I made a numinous list of such reasons. And the fact that you are now posting these links I can regard as WP:TROLLING and a violation of WP:CIV. Please stop it. Solidest (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to essays is not an "get out of jail" card in regards to argumentation. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fram and above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are not the same. It seems to be a spurious nomination. scope_creepTalk 08:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right, they're not the same. Art is a fuzzy term that can essentially be equated with 'the arts', so that the division into '2025 in the arts' and '2025 in art' is meaningless from different points of view, which I've already outlined above. And 'visual arts' is how those categories are currently used - that's what it's been written there for years. Solidest (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so far I haven't seen a single counterargument from the opposition that answers the arguments for renaming. 'Agree with Fram' who didn't say anything specific except that 'art' is in 'art history' also sounds kind of ridiculous (given that of course they'll be moved after the renaming ). Solidest (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is that in the "years in art" and "art history", "art" refers to the same thing. I don't know what you mean by "of course they'll be moved after renaming", "they" doesn't seem to have a referent in your post. I hope you don't mean that the articles on art history will be moved? Perhaps you want modern art to be renamed modern visual arts or something? Contemporary art a problem as well? Fram (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Read ‘Counterarguments to counterpoints: Point 1.’ ‘Art history’ is an academic discipline. It should not have a division into years (just as it would be pointless to have ‘2025 in musicology’ next to ‘2025 in music’). As I've said multiple times, the whole point of this nomination is that ‘YYYY in art’ is now something borderline between ‘in the arts’, ‘in visual arts’, ‘in art history’. And this nomination is made to remove that ambiguity by replacing the branch with only the unambiguous ‘in the arts’ and ‘in visual arts’.
    2. By ‘they’ I mean the nominated categories. Pointing to ‘modern visual arts’ again makes me wonder if you're thinking of renaming the entire ‘Art’ branch, not just the chronological categories. But no, modern/contemporary don't need to be touched or anything done to them. Contemporary art will stay where it is now, under Category:Art by period of creation and others. Modern art will stay where it is now, as it is entirely belong to visual arts - 19th/20th century in art will be replaced by 19th/20th century in visual arts.
    3. Specifically about moving. The final result should be as follows:
  • The arts
    • Arts by period
      • Years/Decades/Centuries in the arts
        • Years/Decades/Centuries in visual arts
    • Art
      • Art history
      • History of art
      • Visual arts
        • Years/Decades/Centuries in visual arts
P.S. Category:History of art - is a new category that emerged after this nomination. And it will be possible to address the question of whether to leave it as it is to include only articles and a couple of categories (since years, decades, centuries will not be there). Or to delete it, as there is a feeling that articles in it are located too arbitrarily. Solidest (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are clearly talking past each other. " Modern art will stay where it is now, as it is entirely belong to visual arts - 19th/20th century in art will be replaced by 19th/20th century in visual arts." You reply as if this is obvious, while this to me seems like completely counterintuitive. Modern art belongs entirely to the visual arts, but you have no problem at all with it being named "modern art" and wouldn't support renaming it to "modern visual arts" (which, for clarity, I would oppose as well). But a category like "1853 in art" belongs entirely to visual arts, so it has to be renamed to "1853 in visual arts". I don't get why you treat these completely opposite positions as if they are logical, consistent, obvious, while to me they contradict each other and nullify your arguments for this CfD. Fram (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I similarly don't really understand your train of thought, given your experience on Wikipedia and your understanding of how categorisation works. You're probably looking at this branch too simplistically, assuming that categories can work by word rather than by meaning. Whereas I am looking at context and making categories more precise and unambiguous, not just matching words. And given the huge background of bringing order between categories in different WD languages, I can clearly see a rotten spot here that doesn't fit the structure and doesn't pass the enwiki categorisation rules as well. So let me try to explain my course of thought once again:
The categorisation by year exists to help navigate Wikipedia. The actual art movements are real entities with historical context and established names by which the articles are written. Movement names do not necessarily imply the existence of ‘2025 in movement’. Just as the existence of ‘modern art’ should not be a premise for creating chronological branches in ‘in art’. We should be guided by the context and meaning behind the word, not by a mechanical coincidence of words in a title. Logic tells us that ‘art’ coexisting with ‘the arts’ is a problem for all the reasons mentioned above (from the definitions in the art article, to the actual use of the words in the sources). So this ambiguity should be avoided - that's what WP:Categorisation calls for. To me now, the title ‘Category:2025 in art’ looks and is rather something that should be formalised as {{Category disambiguation}} or better just as a redirect to ‘Category:2025 in the arts’.
The context also tells us that ‘modern art’ refers to the visual arts. So it would make sense to put this movement in visual arts, because that's a more accurate subcategory. But if there is evidence that it goes beyond the visual arts, then it would be correct to move this article to ‘19th/20th century in the arts’. You can already see that Category:Modern art is placed already in both Category:19th century in the arts, Category:20th century in the arts, and in Category:19th century in art, Category:20th century in art. This is obviously a direct error arising from the coexistence of the two branches. Solidest (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the error, modern art is a major part of 19th c. art (half of it, simplistically put), and as such a part of 19th c. in the arts (just like the other elements there, like dance, fashion, ... It's like Victorian fashion is in Category:19th-century fashion and in Category:19th century in the arts, as a major branch. Both could be removed from the "in the arts" tree directly as they are also part of it one level down, but as major bits they are also put there directly. This is not "obviously a direct error" but a logical way of dealing with this and helping our readers.
" The actual art movements are real entities with historical context and established names by which the articles are written." Things like "modern art" or "contemporary art" or "French art of the 18th century"[11] are not "art movements", they are chronological groupings of art and of art movements like Impressionism or Cubism, just like this whole category tree does. The book "European Art of the 15th century"[12] does not deal with one or two specific art movements, and it also doesn't deal with music, literature, ... It is about painting and sculpture, and is understood as such by most people. This is long established terminology, used everywhere, including in our category tree. This has nothing to do with what you call a "mechanical coincidence", a very weird way to describe this. Fram (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> I don't see the error, modern art is a major part of 19th c. art (half of it, simplistically put), and as such a part of 19th c. in the arts
Every "X in art" is a subcategory of "X in the arts". Placing something in both is redundant. This is just one of the basic principles of ontology, and what is prescribed in WP:CAT#TREE. Victorian fashion placed in a category and its subcategory is the same error (it may be allowed if you reorganise the categories themselves to keep them in parallel, but this is not the right thing to do here).
> This is not "obviously a direct error" but a logical way of dealing with this and helping our readers.
And that's something I absolutely disagree with. When you do something contrary to the rules and consistency just because you think it may be more comfortable to someone - then you are doing something wrong and should read the rules again. Free rein is allowed in the articles, but categories are always a strict and unified approach to avoid mess. And the approach described is definitely not standard practice, but rather something that is regularly corrected.
> are not "art movements", they are chronological groupings of art and of art movements
It doesn't play a role in the context of whether to put them in "visual arts / art" or "the arts". (Both categories are actually directly placed in Category:Art movements tho).
> The book "European Art of the 15th century"[12] does not deal with one or two specific art movements, and it also doesn't deal with music
And this once again rather confirms that ‘YYYY in art’ should be a redirect to ‘YYYY in the arts’. Because this book doesn't deal with music, but a ton of other sources deal - already provided 3 refs which list music/literature/theatre as art above, and there are many more sources like that, e.g. [13] [14] [15]. The current scheme is just not precise, and in one case it works one way, in another case it may work another way. And both approaches are acceptable because ambiguity is sourced and is explicitly written in the art article. This is just a non-working basis to maintain categorization by years.
> understood as such by most people. This is long established terminology, used everywhere, including in our category tree
Now it seems to me that you are imagining things. Because I literally gave you multiple examples of how terminology is actually used in our category tree. In half of the cases it's written "Art something category: Put only visual arts here". And, on the contrary in Category:Modern art it's written: "The arts dating from approximately the 1860s through the 1970s." That's really how people understand it - without a single approach and without a precise definition, no matter how much you would like to see otherwise and what kind of image you have in your mind. Solidest (talk) 17:20, 31 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:Women of South Yemen

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: underpopulated category possibly not in keeping with EGRS SMasonGarrison 12:09, 17 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:People from Martinez, California, by occupation

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just one entry. Also propose merging-

All subcategories with three or less entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose. Small cat is depreciated SMasonGarrison 12:10, 17 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:People from West Elizabeth, Pennsylvania

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 (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:48, 17 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:Talk page bots

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) 04:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: And the others created by this user. In particular, User:AntiClerkBot's purpose is not "talk page". Remsense ‥ 论 06:51, 17 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:Castilian-Manchegan conquistadors

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic categories, Castilla–La Mancha and Castile and León did not exist at the time of the conquistadors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:18, 3 April 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:Australian expatriates in British Overseas Territories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 6#Category:Australian expatriates in British Overseas Territories

Category:Albanian diabetologists

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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry, also merge with Category:Albanian physicians.

Also propose merging:

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:Wikipedia:Blocking policy

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 delete per WP:G5. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia:Blocking policy
Nominator's rationale: This category's purpose appears to be a duplicate of Category:Wikipedia blocking. It only contains an essay that is also in Category:Wikipedia blocking. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:25, 17 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:Slavery of Native Americans

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#Category:Slavery of Native Americans

Category:Albanian composers 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. Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 00:28, 17 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:Barbadian jazz musicians by instrument

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#Category:Barbadian jazz musicians by instrument

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_17&oldid=1284186300"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 17, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.