Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06

This page is for open CFD discussions started in June 2023.
Archived discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2023/06.
CFD tagged categories can be found at Category:CfD 2023-06.
Add new nominations using the "Nominate category for discussion" link in the tools column on the left of a category page.
purge this page's cache

Summary of open discussions

Current requests

[edit]

Older requests

These requests are older than six months and still active.

[edit]

Category:People of People's Republic of China by year

proposal: redirect to Category:People of China by year. we need not separate prc from china for this cat tree. RZuo (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons categories remain confused as to the topic of China/People's Republic of China/Republic of China/Taiwan/etc. and which name to use for each. As far as I am aware there is yet to be a comprehensive consensus on CfD at least. Maybe something at the pump or some other board? Anyway, without consensus, it is hard to judge these sub-cats, and I would not eagerly jump into a rename like this. Josh (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clocks by time in the United Kingdom

And sub-categories.

Incomplete split from parent Category:Clocks by time. Most subcategoeries only have one entry; we don't do this for any other country. Subcategories (e.g. Category:Time 07:46 in the United Kingdom) are not connected to generic HH:MM categories.

If deleted, care will need to be taken to revert edits such as [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clocks by time by country only contains 1 entry (the UK) at the moment. This wasn't set up that long ago, but unless someone can comment that they are ready to go expand this a bit to make it an actual index, as well as properly stitch it into the existing category structure, I think we are okay to go ahead and back it off, revert edits like the one above, and delete the Clocks by time by country tree for now. Josh (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Please delete as per @Pigsonthewing and Joshbaumgartner: unnecessary category split for a useless result : I see no sense and no use in such a category. I wonder what advantage one can derive from a category comprising two things which are not really related. Someone looking for a picture of a clock in UK doesn't care what time it displays. And I see no valid reason to divide dials that display a given time according to countries. Why should one have to click around the world to find the banal thing one is looking for and which in short does not vary from one country to another. Kind regards, --Bohème (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) P.S.: I hadn't noticed : that's 38 categories to classify 50 files. Is that reasonable? --Bohème (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets in Schönheide

see also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Streets named after Kyiv

Streets and roads in Schönheide Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In die Category sollten auch in Landkarten mit Namen bezeichnete Fahrstraßen, Feldwege, Wege (befahrbare und nicht befahrbare) eingereiht werden. Beispiel: Fichtigweg und Hammergockel, aber auch Grasesteig (sind in topographischen Landkarten 1:10.000 mit Namen eingetragen, s. auch die Wegebezeichnungen in den Sächsischen Meilenblättern, Link zum Kartenblatt in der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden).--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Klaaschwotzer, ich plädiere dafür den Kategorienamen zu lassen wie er ist. Das ist zum einen Standard und zum anderen funktioniert nur so die Navigationsleiste zu den Straßen in den anderen Gemeinden des Kreises. Davon unbenommen denke ich, dass man die von dir angeregten zusätzlichen Wege und Straßen mit in die Kategorie einfügen kann. Man kann das ja auch schön im Kategorietext erläutern. Grüße, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klaaschwotzer and Kleeblatt187: I have linked a relevant ongoing discussion on this at the top. It has not been officially closed, but the consensus seems to be that Streets are to be a sub of Roads and that the Roads and streets amalgamation is to go away. Thus, I would recommend one the following:

IF we only have files of roads in Schönheide which are streets, then keep as is.

IF we have files of roads in Schönheide which are streets as well as some which are not streets, then create a new parent category Category:Roads in Schönheide and move all non-street files there, leaving street files in Category:Streets in Schönheide as a sub-cat of roads in Schönheide.

In either case I would not recommend creating a "roads and streets" category here. Josh (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft by construction number

The various descendent categories (for example Category:Boeing 737-700 (msn 38127); Category:Boeing 737-700 (ln 3632), which are about the same, single aircraft), each of which have one member, seem like gross over-categorisation. Such metadata should be dealt with via Wikidata, and {{Wikidata infobox}}, not categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not gross over-categorisation as it is the only suitable categorisation within Commons. Wikidata is not Commons and is an unnecessary intrusion into Commons categorisation. Ardfern (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing and Ardfern: I thought the idea was for the c/n category for an aircraft to be used as a parent when the aircraft has several registrations we have files of it wearing. This C/N category is necessary in these cases to provide a framework for the registration categories, otherwise each registration cat would appear as a unique aircraft even when they are not. The registration category is needed, since the registration can be lifted from the image itself presuming it is visible, so most users can easily categorize an aircraft under its registration without having to do much research. C/N's on the other hand require a bit of research. It's not bad if you are used to finding this info and have the references at hand, but many users who are not familiar with this would be unable to easily sort by aircraft ID if they had to do it directly under the C/N. In the end we end up with this two-layer system of identification, one being the easy-to-use registration categories, and the other a bit more behind-the-curtain C/N categories that provide structure for the registrations linking them to actual airframes they are paired with.

You are completely correct to identify the flaw in that we end up with a lot of C/N cats with only one registration cat under them. It is not overcat per se, but it is redundant to say the least. At first glance I would say we could do away with the C/N categories in these cases, such as you raised above, but there are a couple of problems:

In a lot of cases, the airframe does have multiple registrations, just at the moment we only have files for one. However, the header text lists the various registrations, so a search can help a user find the correct C/N category to put a new registration category in when that second registration has files uploaded. If we delete the C/N category, then we will lose this utility and make it more likely for the two registrations to remain unlinked despite actually being for the same airframe.
As the C/N category is for the airframe, it is the better place to add the history of the aircraft.
As both C/N and registration categories are well in place, I think that some editors are in the habit of creating both for any given pair, even if there is only one registration under the c/n.

Of course, I am not sure deleting the registration category is good either, since this is the easiest and most intuitive to use for users who are not fully immersed in the airframe tracking world.

That said, I 100% agree that tracking airframe histories and registration information is much better handled by a structured database like Wikidata. However, that requires implementation which isn't present, so I don't think we can just undo the work done on the Commons side with a promise of Wikidata saving the day without making sure that the information is already in place on Wikidata, and that the implementation of that data on Commons meets the needs of Commons.

We are certainly not there yet, so what do you propose to resolve this situation? Josh (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't understand how adding the unique identifiers (c/n) of aircraft in Commons is over categorisation Ardfern (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm not clear on the value of Wikidata re aircraft, eg if we enter all c/n data (eg on Boeing 737-700) on Wikidata only, how would you get a list of Boeing 737-700s by c/n, or a list of Boeing aircraft by c/n, or a list of Boeing 737 Next Generation aircraft by c/n. As far as I can see you couldn't, so what value is it in Commons, where we can currently see all such c/n lists due to categorisation Ardfern (talk)

@Ardfern: I think we are in agreement on most of what you say.

Adding unique identifier categories is not overcategorization, a file would only be overcat if it was found both at the parent c/n category and in one of the reg sub-cats. I don't think that is a real issue, as the solution is just to remove the offending categorization, so I'm not worried about overcat with these categories.
Wikidata may be valuable in the future. As I said, it is not there at present, nor is it likely to be there in the immenent future. That means our current solution cannot be 'leave it to Wikidata'. That said, it could be immensely useful in the future. For example, you ask about 737-700 by c/n. Wikidata has a Q for the 737-700 model, and could have Q's for each c/n of a 737-700. If those c/n Q's have a statement saying 'instance of: 737-700', and a statement linking the c/n to the Commons c/n category, then the contents of '737-700 by c/n' can be automatically populated using this data. Again, this does not exist now, and it may never exist, so while it is potentially useful, it is not a solution we can use for the current arrangement. I'm all for developing WD in this direction, but we need to deal with the now. Right now, categorizing c/n's under 'ac by c/n' and reg's under 'ac by reg' works well enough. It is incredibly labor-intensive to maintain, but it is what we have. I would not support dismantling either of those pillars while another solution is just a future pie in the sky.
One thing we could do now, except for the fact that it is currently opposed by category policy, is to permit categorization of category redirects. If this were permitted, then we would not need one cat for the c/n and one for the reg just to have it available in the c/n and reg indices. I would support at minimum an exemption to this policy specifically for these kinds of situation where we maintain multiple redundant categories just so we can see them as subs of different index categories.

Josh (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have inquired on COM:VP for more info regarding the prohibition on categorizing redirects. Josh (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems we should be able to categorize redirects in situations such as this. To that end, for cases where for a specific c/n we only currently have media depicting a single registration on that c/n, I recommend that we redirect the c/n category to registration category, but that the redirect remain categorized in the c/n index. That way it still shows up in C/N lists but we don't have to maintain redundant categories. Josh (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clock emoji

Child categroies shouild use the format "Time 04:30 emoji", to match Category:Time 04:30 etc; not least for the benfit of correct sorting Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support using standard time format, per Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper into this one, it seems that the categories under Category:Clock emoji all are 1:1 vertically redundant to their child unicode categories. Thus I would just change them to redirects to the unicode categories which hold the actual files. Josh (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree "U+1F55F" is a more descriptive and intuitive title than "Clock face four-thirty emoji" (a naming format, I note, that is aligned with the character names in the Unicode standard), and I'm not sure why these were created in the first place, and that not only multiple years after the creation of the older ones, but also after these were categorised in the appropriate Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs category by Tuvalkin (Special:PageHistory/Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji, Special:PageHistory/Category:U+1F55F). I also note that the unicode categories only hold the actual files since the commenter recategorised them (e.g. Special:PageHistory/File:Emojione BW 1F55F.svg). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: That's fair enough, I don't think unicode is really a great title either. I actually prefer the more human name than the machine one for a category name. So what about redirecting, for example, Category:U+1F55F to Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji? I merely addressed the overcat issue (some files were duplicated in parent and child categories). The real issue is that we have two categories for exactly the same thing. We should go forward with one category, determine what the appropriate name for it would be, and other names become a redirect to the one category. I would be fine with upmerging the unicode cats into the named cats for a start. What do you think. Josh (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(@Joshbaumgartner, 1234qwer1234qwer4, and Pigsonthewing: Sorry for neglecting to answer till now.)

Yes, I agree with all the points made above: quoting an edit summary I used a while back, «U-0001F77F is exactly the same thing as Orcus symbols, as much as U+0041 is the same as the letter A — for which we don’t have a separate category (and shouldn’t have)».

In this spirit, I would even say that both Category:U+1F55F and Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji should be renamed / redirected / collapsed into something like Category:Clockfaces at 04:30 or, even better, Category:Timepiece displays at 04:30 (to allow both digital and dial representations), itself to be a subcat of Category:Time 04:30, where non-imagery files and incidental depictions would remain (all this times 720 = 12×60, potentially double).

I see no advantage in having a category for specific Unicode points as such (let alone presenting them as “emoji”!) separate from a category for the same entity in generic circumstances — example in case: File:U+33C8.png should be in the same category as, say, File:Yanmar SV16 (4).jpg (or in a suitably dissiminated subcat, when warranted).

(While searching for examples, I stumbled across Category:U+2116 as a subcat of Category:Numero sign, which is one more case of the same, showing this is an issue wider than just clockface emojis.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, if any user really needs categories named Category:U+0000 to Category:U+FFFF and beyond, well, I’m not against them, just keep them as redirects to the real thing. (I suspect others will object to this kind of massive creation of cat redirects, though, especially since there’s a policy against categorizing redirects, I think, and that’s what these standartized cat names seem to be sought for.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji is categorised into Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs, and I'm not sure this would still be appropriate for a category like *Category:Clockfaces at 04:30. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it would — just the same way this photo is properly categorized under Category:B: The semantics of Unicode character U-0001F55F is indeed «clockfaces at 04:30», much the same way the semantics of Unicode character U+0042 is «the letter "B"». Commons categories are meant to curate disparate media files and are expected to cover a wide gamut of fomality in representation. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a distinction to be made for clearly pictographic characters. The letter B is by itself a grapheme, whereas something like a clock face, a house or an elephant is not to be equated with the respective pictograph. See also the Category:Pictograms by subject category tree. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I agree to some extent: I’m sure that there’s little to gain by subsuming both Category:U+1F3D6‎ and Category:U+26F1‎‎ to their semantic parent Category:Beach umbrellas just to match why we don’t need a Category:U+0041‎‎ within Category:A‎, however I would draw the distinction line between pictographic and semantic in such a way that Category:Clockfaces at 04:30 is still an acceptable synonym for Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question @1234qwer1234qwer4 and Tuvalkin: Perhaps answered above, but to be clear, is "Clock face four-thirty emoji" an officially recognized name for U+1F55F (beyond Commons)? If so, then we really should keep it as it is, not try and convert it to our own format. Can you confirm this, and (bonus point), can you put the citation on record?

I've been looking into the question of categorizing redirects, and I don't think there is really a problem with making Category:U+1F55F a redirect to Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji (or Category:Clock face four-thirty emoji if we change it), and categorizing the redirect under Category:Unicode 1F300-1F5FF Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs and Category:Emoji by Unicode identifier. We don't need to maintain two categories for the same thing. Josh (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are exactly the names provided by Unicode. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicode name is "CLOCK FACE FOUR-THIRTY" (no "emoji" in the name, thanks to St. Michael Everson!); but bear in mind that, for instance, while the Unicode name for "︗" is "PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL LEFT WHITE LENTICULAR BRACKET", the Unicode name for its counterpart "︘" is "PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL RIGHT WHITE LENTICULAR BRAKCET": Unicode names are immutable, typos and all, but we can do better, if needed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That example is a bit offtopic, especially since it is a matter of spelling and has also been "fixed" in the ways possible, i. e. as a formal alias and as an erratum. The "emoji" part in the category name was supposed to be specifically for the distinction between the concept and the pictogram for it as discussed above, though I wouldn't object against replacing it by "(emoji)", "(character)", or the like. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean and I don’t object in what concerns the nature of this discussion — just pointing out that conforming to an exact Unicode is not a good idea per se, as opposed to considering the Unicode name as a suitable “inspiration” when deciding on a Commons cat name. ("Bracket" is an epic typo, but my fav Unicode name blunder has to be the one about "ƣ".)

Anyway, we should get on with this: There’s lot of "emoji" and "U+" catnames to get rid of: I just noticed there’s a handful of them under Category:Unicode 0000-007F Basic Latin — the exact block I have been using for absurd examples of what we should not have and obviously don’t… and yet we do.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But please, let’s not have the numbers spelled out in words, but rather indicated in digits, to make default sorting minimally usable. While I can accept Category:Clockface 04:30 character or Category:Clock face 04:30 pictogram or even Category:Clock face 04:30 emoji (holding my nose — these are not emoticons in anyway), something spelled out, such as Category:Clockface at four thirty, would be even worse a mess than it is now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theater organs (flat list)

This seems entirely wrong to me. Flat-list categories normally contain only categories. This one has no subcategories, and is simply a bunch of pictures that might belong somewhere under Category:Theater organs. Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jmabel: Then, what name is appropriate for the category containing all media under the specific category hierarchies (i.e. Category:Theater organs and its sub-categories, sub-sub-categories, etc) ? It is necesarry to find non-categorized media not included under these hierarchies... Thanks, --Clusternote (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing has been discussed before (sorry, I am not sure where), but as I recall it is the kind of idea that sounds good in a single instance but kind of breaks down when you try and see how it would work if we did it across Commons categories.

The issues raised by Clusternote are real, and we do not have a real good answer for them. This a known consequence of implementing the COM:OVERCAT rule. It appears for example that we sub-cat theater organs by country and by manufacturer. All well and good. A new user uploads a file of a Wurlitzer theater organ in a theater in Germany to Category:Theater organs. Still fine. Now another user recognizes it is in Germany and puts it in Category:Theater organs in Germany and it is removed from Category:Theater organs at this point (or else it would be an overcat violation!) The problem is now that if a user looks for a picture of a Wurlitzer theater organ, they will not find that fine image either in Category:Theater organs, or in Category:Wurlitzer theatre organs. Thus the idea of a category to contain ALL theater organ files, regardless of their sub-categorization, is appealing.

However, the devil is in the details, and when trying to actually apply this in reality there are some problems that crop up:

How is the content determined? Simply grabbing all files from all sub-trees of the main cat doesn't work. Theater organs has sub-cats such as Robert Hope-Jones, who is a person, not a theater organ. If there were a picture of their face there (perfectly in order to have), it probably isn't what one wants to see in this flat list (gallery?). This is solvable to a degree with some arbitrary rules, but as soon as you start editorializing the content, it isn't really 'flat' anymore is it?
What levels are these flat galleries (more than lists, really) allowed at? Should all categories have them?
If a theater organ file is listed here, should it also be listed on the flat galleries for Concert organs, Organs (music), Keyboard instruments, Wind instruments, Musical instruments, Instruments, Devices, Equipment, Objects, and Phenomena? Any theater organ is also all of these things too. This list is just a quick run up the category tree and I didn't go up every tributary so there would be more to add. I do not think we really want to add every image to all of these categories, do we?
How are they maintained? The existance of a flat gallery does not ensure that all theater organ images can be found in one place, just those that are collected there at any given time. As new images are uploaded to the main cat, there is no way to ensure they get copied to the flat cat as well as be sorted normally into sub-cats.

There are other hurdles, but suffice to say in earlier discussions, we reached the conclusion that while they seemed like a good idea, they really were not workable at the scale of Commons categorization. The topic at the time was aircraft, but the issues are the same for all topics. Galleries are no help as they are even more stale than any category would be, and ultimately limited in what can be reasonably shown there. I think in reality, if you want to see all images recursively through a number of sub-category levels, you will need to rely on a third-party tool for it. There are a couple of search tools that offer exactly this kind of utility, but they won't limit their search to actual images of theater organs, they will just grab all images in X sub-levels of categorization.

So I guess, while I sympathize with the issue, this attempt is not a good solution for Commons categories, even if in isolation it might meet a particular user's desires for this particular topic. Josh (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I'll reply details later, but a few points quickly:

(1) Smallness and ease of maintenance of this category: The number of files under the Theater organs categories is relatively small, about less than ~~300~~ 500 files at present (including ~ by country categories), and according to my past experiences, this category may not so quickly grow up in the future. On this small scale categories, I believe that the maintenance works for it (such as detecting/adding unregistered files, and improving categories) is not so hard and it can be regularly done every few years without pain.

(2) If the target category was large, your advice may be true: I have been maintaining larger categories for about 10 years, such as the whole Category:musical instruments, especially the hierarchies of Category:keyboard instruments, Category:Electronic instruments, Category:Guitars, etc. On those relatively large categories, I also think that it is unrealistic to register all files for maintenance.

(3) Past achievements of this method: I am proud to say that I have successfully used this method to organize files on several categories such as Category:The Beatles Story, Category:Musical Instrument Museum (Phoenix), and Category:Hard Rock Cafe (they have huge amount of music memorabilia around the world).
Regarding the feasibility of continuous maintenance, although it is slightly different field and method, Category:Akihabara by year is succeeded to manage all en:Akihabara-related media by year to facilitate the detection of possibly unregistered files, and has been in operation for several years.

Therefore, I believe that this method is useful on small scale category, Category:Theater organs. best, --Clusternote (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: In my eyes, your advice seems stacked by hard assumptions.

In my proposal, the purposes of "flat list" working categories can be explained by following three tasks:

Purpose 1. It provides the ease of find of the new uncategorized files, using the keyword search -- On this purpose, the "flat list" working category provides the list of already categorized files.

Purpose 2. It provides the place for observing the categorized files (as flat list), comparing it with past observation, and discovering unfamiliar or potentially problematic files, to take the action for improvement.

Purpose 3. Additionally, it also provides the place to find the new criteria for potential sub-categorization (for example, categorization by color), examine the new idea, and finally create that new sub-category.

The "flat list" working category in my proposal is just a maintenance work place with a hidden attribute, so it needs not any additional requirements other than the maintenance. We don't need the consistency of a public gallery for generic users, nor the grand scheme for mandating the flat list for all categories on Wikimedia Commons.

Then, try to response to each itemized advice.

Answer 1 & 3: It is merely the hidden working category for maintenance, and not intended for the public gallery. Thus, limitation of sub-category depth nor the exclude role for trivial files are not needed, specifically on the :Category:Theater organs. The portraits of theater organ inventors, or the trivial parts of theater organs, doesn't disturb the maintenance work as far as assuming the scrutiny of individual files.

Answer 2: It is merely the working place for maintenance by individual needs, and not intend for mandating for every categories on Wikimedia Commons. I haven't talk about such excessive theme.

Answer 4 & 1: The needs of maintenance of "flat list" working category, is only required before the maintenance of main category (Theater organs). It is relatively light task, especially on this small scale category (less than 500 files). If none want to maintain this category, probably I will update it irregularly based on my needs. On the other hand, regularly task automation (cron task on UNIX) using some kind of scripting language might be not suitable for current situation, in my opinion.

--Clusternote (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be potentially useful in this case, but it is clearly against policy (COM:OVERCAT). If you want to do something useful in this respect, make a gallery page that shows those pictures of organs that are actually likely to be useful/interesting. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Joshbaumgartner: I don't understand why it is COM:OVERCAT. For example, following situation is COM:OVERCAT ?

main category: (containing no file)
- sub-category by country
  - sub-category of the United States: (containing: File:A.jpg)
- sub-category by builder
  - sub-category by Wurlitzer: (containing: File:A.jpg)
- flat list sub-category: (containing: File:A.jpg)

--Clusternote (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Anyway, if the continuous existence or the maintenance of "flat list" working category is the issue, then we may be able to implement the equivalent feature by the introduction of new mandatary categories (for example, Category:Theater organs by action where the action is one of {mechanical | pneumatic | electric | electronic | unknown}). --Clusternote (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS2: My purpose of "flat list" working category is not for the public gallery, but for the working place for maintaining the structure of main categories. If we created it temporarily, worked on it, then removed it immediately, probably it must be valid, in my thought. --Clusternote (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Clusternote: Strictly speaking, COM:OVERCAT is essentially double-catting a page under both parent and child categories, and I was under the impression that files moved to the 'flat' category would not be left in the main category (seems to be what is illustrated above). I do think that attempting to comply with COM:OVERCAT is part of the justification for a 'flat' category to hold 'all' images of a given topic. However, it may fall under what some commonly use 'over-categorization' to refer to and that is having any given page listed in too many categories especially in multiple tangental or redundant ones. Josh (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clusternote: I wasn't assuming that you were trying to roll this category out Commons-wide or anything, but I was just trying to bring forward some of the questions and issues raised during earlier discussions about categories like this one. It seems that you are looking at this as more of a maintenance category, if I am not mistaken, and you are right that such categories are handled differently than standard topical categories. A few comments/questions to get your take on:

As a maintenance category, what would then be the difference as opposed to say the maintenance categories in the Category:Media needing categories tree. Note maintenance category names are not nearly as well managed as topical categories, so do not let the category names mislead you as to their actual purpose. In particular 'unidentified x' categories are probably poorly named, but serve the purpose of collecting files on X topic that need to be further sorted.
I am not sure if you really see this a temporary working category or a permanent feature of the topic structure. At one point you mention it being a sort of repository for sorted images (purpose 2), not just a place for files that need work. Perhaps you can help clarify whether these are sticky or not.
When you say "ease of find of the new uncategorized files, using the keyword search", for which users do you refer. Are you speaking about general browsing users or those active editors on the particular topic? I'm also not sure how the keyword search is affected one way or the other, but there may be search techniques that it would be better for. Perhaps a little on how you see the interaction between the 'flat' category and the search function would clarify.

I do kind of like the idea of a maintenance category that can be specific to a topic as a sort of work space for active maintenance efforts. It would not necessarily be a permanent feature (though some topics might warrant this) and would only be kept so long as their are active editors working on that topic. I was thinking maybe a hatnote on the category that explains that it is a workspace for the topic, a brief description, and a list of editors who are active on that topic. Those editors would be point of contact for anyone contributing, and if the project is abandoned then it can be done away with, but only if none of the editors listed were responsive. I don't know, just a thought, and it might not apply to what you are wanting to do here.

We also have user categories, but those are more personal and discourage others who might want to help from getting involved in their contents. Also, we discourage linking between user and topic categories, so that can make some tasks a little harder to use standard tools and gadgets on.

Don't get me wrong, I like what you are doing, and I think we should find a way to support it. I also want to avoid users coming across this kind of special category and wonder what the heck it is and why it isn't like other flat lists they might be familiar with. Josh (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Airbus Helicopters Puma family

see related discussion at: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

Category:Airbus Helicopters Puma family	Move to/Rename as	Category:Puma (helicopter family)
similar to categories such as Category:Concorde, Category:F-15 Eagle and Category:F-16 Fighting Falcon this was made by many manufacturers over the years, including Sud Aviation (original development), Aerospatiale (initial primary manufacturer, manufacturer of majority of examples, and only maker of most variants), Westland (joint manufacturer for some orders), Eurocopter (succeeded Aerospatiale), and Airbus Helicopters (current manufacturer). Naming with only one of these is inaccurate and misleading. See linked discussion above for discussion of options for dealing with these kinds of aircraft categories. Normal practice is to include the manufacturer when there is one clear one but not for those where there a more than one significant manufacturer, especially when there is a widely recognized name like Puma, Concorde, F-15 Eagle, etc. that is sufficient. The new name is also consistent with most of its contents (Universality Principle).
Josh (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal to correctly parenthesize dab. Josh (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”)

One or more files pertinent to this discussion have been removed from the category being discussed.
Some of these files have been restored, but some original contents may remain missing. Please be aware of this while discussing this category.
Please do not remove files from this category. (obviously errant files, such as a cat picture in a dog category, may still be fixed if unrelated to the discussion)
It is important to retain the current state of a category so that participants can understand what is being filed there and how best to evaluate proposals to delete, rename, merge, and/or recategorize the topic category. All file moves should be done after the discussion is closed and in accordance with the conclusion of that discussion.
This notice posted by: Josh (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diese Kategorie ist völlig unnötig, da es bereits Category:ÖBB logos gibt, eine Kategorie, die auch korrekt im Kategorienbaum für das Unternehmen (Category:Österreichische Bundesbahnen) steht. Die neuere Katgeorie ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”) ist wegen Nutzung exotischer Sonderzeichen nicht auffindbar, außerdem nicht vernünftg in andere Kategorien eingebunden (zB von Category:Österreichische Bundesbahnen nicht zu finden). Hier liegt der Fokus nur auf der Unterstellung, dass falsch verwendete Akzente verwendet worden wären. Daher schlage ich die Löschung der Kategorie vor.--Taste1at (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This category is meant to offer specific categorization to the current ÖBB lettermark "

" which has speficic typographic characteristics, as mentioned in the o.p., and which in turn allow to correlate this category with such others under those parent categories — e.g. Category:Diacritics styled by cutting in the letterform. If the current category name with “unusual characters” is found unsuitable, then renaming it could be discussed: Maybe Category:ÖBB logo (1998)?

This category is furthermore a step in the right direction of subcategorizing ÖBB logos as needed. Concerning the logo image contents, difference should be made between what is merely a logo used by the company, such as this one, and what is the company’s identificative lettermark — be it in its current incarnation (covered by the category now in discussion), as well as in any previous version, such as in this one.

(In this regard, please consider Category:Pflatsch, which is about the 1974-1998/2004 logo of the same entity and yet not categorized under Category:ÖBB logos — suggesting that there are indeed errors in the categorization of the logos of ÖBB in Commons, but not as claimed in the o.p.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previously to even starting this dicussion, Taste1at (talk · contribs) recategorized all its contents, in a a gesture of bad faith that is conducent to obfuscate any meaningful discussion. I recomend swift administrative action to prevent further vandalism. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This affected 18 files. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"subcategorizing ÖBB logos as needed" - No, this is only the case as of now, so my original post was perfectly accurate. I did not vandalize anything, it was vandalism to un-categorize the logos from the original category related to the company in the first place. No need for administrative action. Category:ÖBB logo (1998) would be possible, but I do not see the point for only a handful of files.Taste1at (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”) was created by Tuvalkin for the new (since 1998) logos such that it could be added to a bunch of catgeories in Tuválkin's own category tree. Just some extra comment its use here: the categories "Unorthographic use of diacritics" and "Diaeresis shaped as acute accent mark" are mutually exclusive: Either there is a diaeresis, which is shaped like a acute or there is another, then possibly unorthographic, diacritic. Here, actually, none of the two categories is correct, since the abbreviation starts with an Ö, which is an Umlaut, not a Diaeresis, as pointed out correctly in the English Wikipedia. Correct would be "Umlaut shaped as acute accent mark". In no case, this should be part of the (super-category) Category:Spelling errors involving diacritics, since it is not an error, but artistic freedom. And for sure, the logo does not use the Myanmar alphabet, particularly not its Letter Pa (U+1015) “ပ”, which was used in the name of the category. So, renaming would be the minimum requirement.--Taste1at (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

There are no «catgeories in Tuválkin's own category tree» — there are only Common’s categories. I don’t play COM:OWN and you’re on your 2nd step on a ladder away from COM:AGF. (And, after all, if these were just my categories, why would do you even care?)
Obviously the word "diaeresis" is meant here as the diacritical mark shaped as two dots, irrespective of its orthographic usage in any given language.
Denoting Umlaut by means of an acute accent mark is certainly unorthographic in German — an artistic freedom, as in other thusly designed logos your uncategorization has now isolated the ÖBB logo from. Grouping that kind of logo design with unintentional mistakes under the same category is productive and useful; if needed this nexus could be refined, but never removed.
Obviously "ပ" here is a standing for open top Latin "ɔ" which would not work well in this cat name — nor visually, nor formally: One more reason to rename this Category:ÖBB logo (1998); we agree on that.
Yes, I had forgotten till after this discussion started to propertly categorize this category under Category:ÖBB logos. Now, to do the same with Category:Pflatsch…
Categories are created as needed, and the required minimum number of elements is 1 (either files or subcats). What matters most is a category’s own categorization, and categorizing the parent cat Category:ÖBB logos itself with things like Category:OBB letter combinations would be a mistake, as several ÖBB logos do not bear the letters "ÖBB", as mentioned, neither in this specific lettermark, itself categorization-worthy, nor otherwise.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should have read my comment much more carefully: Specifically, I did not write that the use of an accent would not be “unorthographic” because of artistic freedom. I wrote that it was not an “error” because of artistic freedom. In several dictionaries [2] [3], error is defined as a mistake, as opposed to the conscious decision to act differently.--Taste1at (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taste1at and Tuvalkin: I have restored the files to this category. I thought it was an empty cat when I first looked at it, before realizing I was being misled. With the files back, I can actually see what is going on here. Once we conclude, the files can be moved or retained as appropriate, no need to touch them until then. Now as the substance of the discussion:

It sounds like the basic problem of this category being severed from the parent ÖBB logos has been solved by adding that omitted category.
It is true that the special characters are a problem for accessibility, but it sounds like Category:ÖBB logo (1998) is acceptable, which solves this issue.
What seems an unnecessary split to some is often a key delineation for others, so I don't find the necessity argument particularly compelling.

@Taste1at: If the first two items are solved, is there any other reason (beyond not seeing the utility in it) for seeking deletion at this point?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbaumgartner (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21. Jun. 2023‎ (UTC)

I am fine with keeping and renaming this category.

Following Tuválkin's suggestion I have added Category:Pflatsch to Category:ÖBB logos.

My criticism on other issues, like the misuse of the word diaeresis for an umlaut, are still valid, but not part of this discussion here.--Taste1at (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category contents moved to new Category:ÖBB logo (1998); the "move category" command seems to be unavailable.

My criticism on other issues, such as the vandalism perpetrated by Taste1at, is still valid, but not part of this discussion here.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novak Đoković

Move to Category:Novak Djokovic per Commons:Categories § Category names: Category names should generally be in English. Here the non-English name is not more commonly used in English (for example, "Đoković" appears in just two of the hundreds of English-language source titles cited on his enwiki page, both of them published in the Balkans). This category was created back in 2007 and discussed by just a handful of users in 2013-2016, but there was no consensus (2–1 for moving; the 1 closed the discussion). Pinging the active users from back then, @Kacir and Achim55. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of subcategories Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Category:Novak Đoković at the 2009 US Open

Categories are useful to find images. Whether A redirects to B or vice versa B to A makes no difference. I personally prefer the original names in the birth cert/original language. But I don't care which way is chosen. --Achim55 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree – per nomination. Djoković is the expected form of the surname. IMO no one but Serbs will search for a name like Đjoković. BTW, Djere was moved on en wiki in April 2023. Kacir (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naomi Ōsaka and Category:Martina Navrátilová are related categories with nonstandard (for English) diacritics. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wales

There is a long-brewing issue with the category scope of this territorial entity. Is this category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, or is it for the historical independent country of Wales? This needs to be discussed, as it has led to continual slow-burn conflict between user and several others, with it continually getting added to and removed from the same categories over the years. This creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies. Josh (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000, Synthwave.94, Hmains, Gikü, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, and Place Clichy: (pinging some recent editors on this topic)

For the most part Wales as a single name appears to be used for several potential concepts or definition (list not exhaustive):

Wales, the constituent country of the United Kingdom. This is the current political-administrative-geographic entity which is a sub-division of the United Kingdom. It is not a sovereign state and is internationally universally recognized as wholly constituent within the United Kingdom. Thus, this entity is not a "country" per Commons' Countries, but instead a subdivision.
Wales, the former country. The no longer extant sovereign entity that went by the name "Wales". Near as I can tell, there were a couple such entities that would fit this bill. One would be the Kingdom of Wales, though I don't know if that exact title was ever used as such (just my lack of knowledge here). I know there were a few Kings of Wales, and calling such kingdoms "countries" is a bit of a fudge, but I think we pretty much are okay with that given how we treat a lot of other old kingdoms on Commons. There was also a brief period (15th century?) where they had an independent state and parliament before getting taken over by England (not sure what name it went by). That short-lived state would most certainly be considered a country, and if we had categories for them (and we should if we have media from those periods), they should be correctly found under Countries.
Wales, the nation. The community of people of Wales linked by certain elements, such as language, history, culture, ethnicity and/or society. This is more amorphous and distinctly different from a country. However, on Commons we tend to lump national entities into the category of whatever the closest analogous current political entity is. For nations such as Ireland or China, this can be contentious as their nations are not limited to a single such entity. Personally, I think this is not the best practice, but it is what we do and I'm not really ready with a proposal to overhaul that.
Wales, the current country. The concept of Wales as a current independent sovereign state. Obviously this is nascent at the moment, and its exact form differs based on who is considering it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at some level. This is distinct from the constituent country of the UK, though most such concepts would naturally assume an independent Wales to assume the borders, people, land, bodies, etc. from the current constituent country.
Wales, the sporting country. The various participation in and recognition by international sports activity as a country in international competition. Sports bodies are not bound to the political boundaries and can define what entities are or are not permitted to compete as 'countries'. Their definition of 'country' does not have to match what sovereign states recognize as countries. While this is appropriate to recognize for categories to do with international sport, it should not extend beyond that scope. I believe the main category for this would be Category:National sports teams of Wales.
Wales, the geographic region. Contents specific to the geographic area generally considered to be Wales, independent of political status and boundaries.
Wales, the flame-thrower... okay maybe not.

Each of the above (well 1 to 5 anyway), are each distinct concepts, and I think a lot of the problem here is that we have piled all of them into 1 category (Wales) and now folks who want to categorize it as they would any other subdivision are at odds with those who want to categorize it as they would any other current or former country.

This is why the Simplicity Principle exists! To many concepts in one category leads to problems!

We should have a category for Wales, the subdivision, and we should have a category for Wales, the country. Each should be categorized appropriately within the established norms for its type of entity. But what to call them? Typically, we would give the 'simple' name to the current country and 'long' name to the former entity (such as Germany for the current country, German Empire for the old one). One option would be to simply create countries for the former country entities, so we would have:

Category:Wales - current constituent country of the United Kingdom
Category:Wales (state) - former country of Wales that existed in the 15th/16th centuries (name can change with research on exactly how this state was styled)
Category:Kingdom of Wales - realms of the various kings of Wales that existed from 798-1170
Category:Wales (nation) - topics and contents pertinent to Welsh cultural identity independent of specific political entities
Category:National sports teams of Wales - parent category for Wales as a country in international sport

If it is deemed too politically loaded to make the constituent country the default Category:Wales, we could potentially make Category:Wales a dab adding to the above list:

Category:Wales - dab category for the various Welsh categories
Category:Wales (constituent country) - current constituent country of the United Kingdom (alternatively Category:Wales (United Kingdom) or such)

With the above categorization, the category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom and the category for the former country can each be categorized stably and peacefully in their respective category trees without the silly back and forth on whether Wales is a country or not a country, if it is an overcat or not, etc. Josh (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then would we need to do the same for England and Scotland? -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CC @Jimbo Wales:

Joshbaumgartner - Dividing Wales like this only answers part of the question. The crux however is the right to use two parent categories for articles on Wales:

1. Wales in its own right, on an European / international level (Your points # 2 - 5).

2. Wales as a constituent country of the United Kingdom

eg adding Category:Mathematicians by country| as well as Category:Mathematicians in the UK. Category:Footballers by country as well as Category:Footballers in Wales.

COM:OVERCAT actually lists 'countries' as exceptions to the rule:

Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. For example, Category:India is in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia.

At the end of the day, Wales is one place, one country with many aspects, just as every other nation. See: Category talk:Wales for discussions on this matter, over many years: not one person disagreed with having both partent categories.

Let's also recognise that the country's situation is rather unique in the fact that yes it's a country, but is also part of the UK. One wiki-size doesn't fit all. Adding both parental cats reflect the real situation, the reliable sources.

Your opening statement Is this category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, or is it for the historical independent country of Wales? ignores modern Wales. The question shgould have been: Is this category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, or is it for the historical and modern independent country of Wales, which participates at an European and international level? Wales is an independent football nation, playing on an international level. The two cats I suggest are geographical rather than historical, thus simplifies the whole unique problem. Yes, Wales is sometimes a part of the UK AND yes, Wales is sometimes a country on an international level. It's not 'either or', but rather yes, we're both. This is fully in line with our policies.

Lastly, Joshbaumgartner says, "This (creating two cats) creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies. Yet, is perfectly stable for Category:India to be in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia. Nothing unstable or inconsistent in that. And if it violates Commons category policies, then change it! Wiki projects should reflect the sources.

So, allowing two parent categories on matters about Wales is the simple answer. NOT allowing Wales to add Wales means that Wales is not a country, and that's an argument I haven't come accross for years! One parent category reduces it to a sub-region of the UK, and that goes against all the reliable sources, is only half true and reduces the positive, caring, diverse nature and ethos of our Wikiprojects to an unfinished unionist political statement.

On Category:Wales your removal here of the parent category: Category:Countries of Europe should have been discussed on the Talk page before removing it, as is usual. You're disputing either that Wales is a country or 2 that Wales is in Europe. Which is it? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a compromise. Let's look at everything on Commons in topic form. Anything which is relevant to Wales as a constituent country of the UK get's just that one parent category (eg Category:British monarchy in Wales, Category:Union Jacks in Wales, Category:Images of General Election polling booths in Wales). The rest gets both cats (eg Category:Ferral horses in Wales gets a parent category Category:Ferral horses by country|Wales AND Category:Ferral horses in the UK; same with Category:Mathematicians in Wales, having nothing at all to do with Wales being annexed to the UK, would have both. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Llywelyn2000 has misquoted me ("This (creating two cats) creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies.) What I actually said was "This creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies." By "this", I was not referring to creation of two categories as creating that situation but in fact was referring to the current situation in which we have everything mashed into one category, the opposite of what they added to my quote.

Comment Another point of record regarding Llywelyn's comment about including Wales under Countries of Europe. They state: "over many years: not one person disagreed with having both partent categories." This is patently false. Since Llywelyn added that category for the first time in 2018, it has been removed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 times by at least 8 different users. Clearly at least 8 people disagreed with Llywelyn's categorization.

@Auntof6: "Then would we need to do the same for England and Scotland?" - I believe this is already how England is structured:

Category:England, the constituent country of the United Kingdom, and
Category:Kingdom of England, the former country

Likewise Scotland has:

Category:Scotland, the constituent country of the United Kingdom, and
Category:Kingdom of Scotland, the former country

So this is at the heart of what I suggest we do for Wales by adding categories for its former country forms. Josh (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1st

Comment. Your opening statement on 'long-brewing issue' was followed by two sentences 'This needs to be..' and then 'This creates..'. Both referred to the 'long-brewing issue', ie the addition by myself, and many others, of Wales being a country within Europe / the world. The purpose of this discussion, is that you want Wales to be treated only as a part of the UK. Your suggestion is that only the legal definition of Wales should be considered; legal as defined by England! I have no calms with using 'Kingdom of Scotland' or 'Kingdom of Wales'; no probs. But what is left (Wales within the UK, only) is insufficient, incorrect, fake news, nothing less than a make believe unit. To ignore the international standing shows a bias.

Your 2nd

Comment is very wrong. You have misread. I said At the end of the day, Wales is one place, one country with many aspects, just as every other nation. See: Category talk:Wales for discussions on this matter, over many years: not one person disagreed with having both parent categories. ' I referred to not having discussion on the Wales:Talk page not in the article. You then list not discussions but 8 reverts! By the way, I was wrong, two users did discuss this issue, and a further two users were in favour of adding the parent category: Countries of Europe.

Comment. You are yet to answer my question. I'll repeat: You're disputing either that Wales is a country or 2 that Wales is in Europe. Which is it?

Comment I've quoted the relevant part of Commons category policies which allows more than one category. I'll do it again: Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. Can you confirm that my addition of 'Countries of Europe' was well within Commons category policies.

Comment Categories for Wales' former country forms isn't a long brewing issue. The problem is that you don't accept that there is a modern Wales, playing on an international stage, creating its own laws, raising its own taxes, having its own 'national' institutions - all of which have NOTHING to do with 'being part of the UK'. Once you face this question, we can start discussing my compromise. Two cats: one for Wales as part of the UK, and one for Wales as a country.

Compromise 2. Start a new category: Category:Sovereign states (it's now a RD) - include all sovereign states; do NOT include Wales or Scotland in such a category. But please, don't exclude countries such as Wales and Scotland under Category: Countries, for that is what we are. Countries. Wikimedia projects should reflect the world, not try and change the world. Take politics out of this.

A long, long time ago, English Wikipedia, came to a consensus that, yes, Wales is a country. It's high time Commons also made that statement. Or is the truth too political? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: Your comment is so all over the place and laced with political opinions, I can't really tell what you are getting at. Are you supporting one of my proposals, opposing it, or what? If you are opposing one of my proposals, which one? You say you have no problem with Kingdom of Scotland, etc., so that sounds like you support the first option I posted. Of course only you can say what you really are thinking so maybe it is best to get down to basics before we get lost. You certainly seem to think I am your enemy and just want to squash Wales and her liberty-loving people into the ground with my Union Jack boot, but treat with me a moment and let me ask a couple of basic things to start with:

Q1: In your opinion, what is Wales?

Q2: Do you think that there should be a Commons category structured to accommodate the entirety of your answer to Q1, or should there be multiple categories covering different aspects of that definition, or both maybe?

Josh (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh, for pinging me to this issue. I should agree with Llywelyn2000's Compromise 2 as accurate. As far as I have seen, the use of "country" for sovereign state is highly problematic, peoples, nations and non-sovereign countries exist before 19th or 20th century nation states or sovereign states, so it is not an option IMO to erase their existence from that category. I have seen similar issues related to citizenship and nationality (Wikidata mainly), with citizenship ("France" or whatever it is) used to categorize 16-17th century people (sic), hence default, present-day official language ("French" or whatever it is). Wales is no doubt a country, but not a sovereign state. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshbaumgartner my answers are as over the place' as the questions you raise are 'all over the place'. You ask, 'In your opinion, what is Wales?' and this isn't the place for that academic discussion. It would take us further 'all over the place'. There are many reasonable questions I've asked which you still haven't answered; please do so. Your Q2 gives a limited choice of two suggestions, as if one would ask: "What's a cow? Is it an animal with two horns and a "Mooo!", or is it an animal with four legs and a fart?" I've answered your question, several times, and I'm quite sure you've understood fully. Wales is much more than your limited choice of either historic Wales, at one period of time, and/or a Wales annexed to England, at one period of time. Iñaki LL has fully understood. I have offered a way around your 'long-brewing issue', and to be honest, I'm shocked that we haven't a category of sovereign states as well as countries as both are very different! I will now go ahead and do that.

This thread was a result of my leaving a message on your Talk page, two days earlier, in which I asked, "On the [[:Category:Industry in Wales]] I removed your template 'topic in country' as it doesn't recognise Wales as a country (which it undisputedly is)." That was a courteous thing to do; very unbiased, neutral statement, and totally correct. To which you replied that it had passion and Welsh nationalist fervor (sic). This shows your bias, prejudging an editor for stating that Wales is a country. Your response now is, You certainly seem to think I am your enemy.... That is over the top. I have reiterated and confirmed only what the sources say about Wales, and that is totally apolitical.

Lastly, I've just come accross the defenition of a Country on Commons, under Category:Countries: A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state.. Removing both Europe and World parent categories from topics to do with Wales, therefore should be disallowed. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 as longstanding practice on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iñaki LL: Thank you for a pretty clear comment. I think you do have a couple of good points. Let me first say that I completely agree that 'retroactive' citizenship assignment is a problem, if that is what you are finding. It is not correct, in my opinion, that just because a painter was born and lived in the Kingdom of Awesome, even though that kingdom had no formal citizenship concept, for us to sort them as an Awesome citizen in our citizenship categories which are very much defined by formal, official citizenship laws. Same with language. However, that problem deserves its own discussion to fix, so I won't digress too far here.

I do agree that the name of Category:Countries can lead to confusion. Not that the word 'countries' is difficult to understand, but it can cover a lot of different things. One of the struggles I see repeated with categories across Commons is when we have a category with a name 'X' that covers 'A', 'B', and 'C', but the category itself is exclusive to 'A'. Users attempt to add 'B' or 'C' to it (understandable given the name), and then are frustrated when those attempts are reverted or they are told that 'B' or 'C' does not belong in Category:'X'. Afterall, 'B' and 'C' are very obviously 'X' and anyone who speaks basic English should know that so how can Category:'X' be limited to only 'A'?

This seems to be the case with Category:Countries. 'Sovereign states' is a subset of 'things that can be considered countries', yet Category:Countries is structured around only 'sovereign states' and this is clearly creating friction when something that may not be a 'sovereign state' but is a 'country' is disallowed from inclusion in Category:Countries. It seems an affront, even if not intended as such.

The proposal to move all 'sovereign state' content down into a subcat (Category:Sovereign states) while broadening the inclusion criteria for Category:Countries is a reasonable one. It is exactly the solution that I have implemented on several categories where this crops up: create subcategories 'A', 'B', and 'C' of Category:'X' and make 'X' a main cat which includes everything, with contents sorted into the subs. When a topic is relatively compact, this is completely workable and relatively simple to implement (eg an aircraft and its variants). However, when approaching larger topics where a significant structural change like that can be very disruptive, we need to be a bit more reserved about sweeping changes such as this.

There is another way to do essentially the same thing, but with far less disruption: Leave the existing category in place and create a new parent category with broader scope. I have also used this solution on several categories, typically where the current category is well established, but too limited. Creating a new parent category which is more inclusive solves the problem without the significant disruption that goes with changing a long-established category.

Category:Countries is one of the biggest main topics on Commons, with thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of derived categories based on it's scope and name. Moving sovereign states to a sub of countries is simple, but having to repeat that process on tens of thousands of sub-categories is a significant undertaking. If needed, than so be it, but we should make sure it is really necessary before launching that.

I think we also need to determine what the scope of the new main cat 'countries, sovereign or not' is. It is all well and good to say 'countries' includes more than just 'sovereign states', but what are the new boundaries on this? Once we have that delineation, then it will be more clear how to modify the current structure to accomodate that larger set.

Comment on Wales specifically: I agree that it is silly to say "Wales is not a country", as it clearly is a country in many different ways, as I've listed in my original post. I think it is important to be clear however, that not including Category:Wales in Category:Countries is NOT a statement to that effect. Categorization is merely a question of whether and how the scope of the Category:Wales fits within the scope of the Category:Countries. This is a debatable matter of course (hence this discussion), but it is in no way a statement about Wales itself or its status in the world.

Comment on category names: Names are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, a category's name should be determined by its content, not the other way around. This is why it is first important to determine the structure and scope of a category, and the name will follow. What we shouldn't do is to say that since a category is named 'X', that means it must contain anything the word 'X' can cover. Josh (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh for your rational take on this. Both of us agree:

'Sovereign states' is a subset of 'things that can be considered countries'.
The proposal to move all 'sovereign state' content down into a subcat (Category:Sovereign states) while broadening the inclusion criteria for Category:Countries is a reasonable one.

Now then, 'what are the new boundaries'? What is / are the criteria for the group? Let's stick to sources, and let's take them one by one, case by case. We can start with Wales and Scotland, and accept that, yes, these are countries, due to the strength of the reliable sources which back that definition. All the sources are also in ageement that Northern Ireland isn't a country. If other people from other places would like to include their piece of land under Category:Countries, then they would need to make their case. In the meantime, let's set out the best structure, rather than the easiest. AWB can help with this, as can your template 'topic in country'.

What do you suggest is the next step? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000: You are correct that we agree on those points. It seems we also agree that doing things right should not be obstructed just because it isn't the easiest thing. I hope we can also agree on a couple of additional things:

There can be more than one reasonable approach to solve a problem.
Renaming Category:Countries will involve more than just a lot of work; it will be a massive undertaking like none we've seen before on Commons.

There are few categories better established or more widely used than Category:Countries and its tree. Just the number of index categories listed at Category:Categories by country is almost 1800, and many index cats never get properly sorted in this meta category. Changing names and moving content aren't even the biggest impacts. Bots and bulk tools can help with that. Beyond that, the number of impacts on other sister and third party projects is immense. And something that people don't often think of, the thousands upon thousands of Commons users over the years who know and understand what Category:Countries is, what it covers, and how to use it, have to suddenly come around to it being changed to something different. This is not a trivial matter. Not insurmountable either, just a really high bar.

As for inclusion criteria, it does seem like you are saying the inclusion criteria would be that Scotland and Wales are in, Northern Ireland out, and everything else we can figure out later. I don't think this makes for a useful or objective criteria. Saying to rely on source material is a bit missing the mark, as it sounds good, but in practice, I haven't seen a single source out there that says: "Wikimedia Commons Category:Wales must be categorized under Wikimedia Commons Category:Countries". That comment may sound a bit specious, but there is a serious point: when an author writes a book or paper or some other source, I don't think they usually have Commons categorization structures in mind. Thus it would be a horrendous mistake to presume that their context and definition of "Wales" and "countries" however they used them in their work is necessarily any relation to the context and definition of Category:Wales or Category:Countries on Commons. Sources can of course inform our discussion about categorization, but they cannot dictate how things are categorized, unless they really are explicitly a source writing about Commons categories specifically. However, I don't want to dismiss the idea, so could you perhaps provide a citation that you would consider valid in supporting the idea that Category:Wales should be categorized under Category:Countries (either current or proposed versions). Josh (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh's points are not minor, "sovereign state" is the most accurate, but as Josh pointed out it may take too much of an effort. In order to simplify: as the first entry in Collins goes, and I am persuaded it reflects English-language practice, "Country" is "one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land". At this point, Commons is divided according to English-language categories and I do not think there is much we can do about that at this point, possibly at another stage of discussion. Collins' definition is a wide one, not at odds with "Wales", straight: I see Wales up for inclusion. The problem would lie with such political constructions as "Northern Ireland", which may be included in "Country" as the lesser of two evils, or not considered at all. Catalonia may be included if we consider it as a historical nationality, acknowledged also in the Spanish Constitution, and political unit, but it may come across as controversial.

There are other related national entities. The "Basque Country" is explicitly a country, but not a political unit as defined in English, except if we take it as the western Spanish unit Basque Autonomous Community ("Basque Country"), as named in Spanish and sometimes also in English these last decades. In Basque language, only Euskal Herria or Basque Country exists, while the name for the western political unit has been constructed later (Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoa, the autonomous community). Cases like the Basque Country (Kurdistan, Sápmi...) have come to be categorized under the umbrella of (cross-border) cultural regions or Disputed regions/territories, since they have no central political authority, and at this point I do not see other option out for categorization.

To sum up: broad sense for "Country" and inclusion of Wales (and Scotland), with consideration of a future split between "Country" and "Sovereign state" with easier technical conditions to accomplish the task. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should stick to the commonly-understood definition of country as sovereign state, for the sake of clarity and consistency. Note that this was the long-standing definition mentioned in Category:Countries until this change. This definition also extended to some dependent territories, significantly separated from their country's mainland, although they could be placed in a separate dependent territories category. This in no way diminishing towards Wales as a nation. However, extending the notion of country in categories would unfortunately be without end. There's little reason to place Wales among countries and not other sub-national entities such as the Basque Country, German and Austrian Länder (Land means country in German), the Black Country, the West Country, the Wine Country, the Texas Hill Country, the Pennsylvania Dutch Country etc. I therefore suggest to revert to the previous definition of Category:Countries and explicitly refer to sovereign states only. To be more explicit: the debate should not be about in which category to place Wales, it should be about what to place in Category:Countries. And the answer is obvious: UK categories should be at that level. Place Clichy 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies with the ideological appropriation by sovereign states of the whole range of linguistic options to call nations other than sovereign states: nation, country. Take for instance the present-day "Category:Flags of France", where "Flags of France" stands for virtually whatever flag lies within that sovereign state, instead of "Flags in France". This is not innocent, of course. This trend leaves no linguistic leeway to categorize nations other than sovereign states.

Despite their use of "country" in the instances brought up by Place, generated for commercial, touristy or generic (umbrella) geographic purposes (Wine Country, etc.), they clearly belong to another category, not connected to national realities. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Place Clichy I agree with you that Category:Countries should be defined as sovereign states only. However, it is not a case of reverting to this, as this is the current scope of the category and unless this discussion arrives at a consensus to change that status quo, that will remain the correct scope for Category:Countries. Josh (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Iñaki LL, and Place Clichy: ~~I have read the above discussion carefully and I propose to define the Countries category to cover the following political entities:~~

~~Sovereign states~~
~~Empires~~
~~Dependent territories~~
~~Non-self-governing territories, as defined by the UN~~
~~Colonies~~
~~Subnational entities that participate as "countries" in certain international events.~~
~~Subnational entities that are called "countries", including the Constituent countries of the United Kingdom.~~

~~I hope my proposed definition of "country" will resolve any disputes regarding its definition.~~ For nations that are not related to a particular political entity (like Bengali, Chinese, Irish and Tamil peoples), feel free to expand the Nations category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Non-self-governing territories, as they are often included in a map of countries (like Western Sahara). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your list carefully. It does not reflect the fact as stated above that a sovereign state (and the other entities in your list) is a sub-category of countries. As Joshbaumgartner stated above: Sovereign states' is a subset of 'things that can be considered countries. Secondly, your inclusion of the UN's definition of Non-self-governing territories is too limited. Non-self-governing countries should also be included. All the reliable sources, for the last 900 years state that Wales is a country. This is the most important criteria on all Wikimedia Projects - reliable sources. Your accepted list includes the Malvinas, accepted as a country (!) and Wales is not! This is 100% incorrect, false, irrational. If you accept the politically motivated UN list, then you must also accept that Non-self-governing territories not on the UN list are also acceptable if the reliable sources say so. I move that both are included in the 'Countries' category UN and non-UN Non-self-governing territories / countries. PLEASE, let's stick to facts and reliable sources, and not the remnants of colonial empires. 103.125.235.24 08:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, your inclusion of the UN's definition of Non-self-governing territories is too limited. Non-self-governing countries should also be included. The Dependent territories are "non-self-governing" in its literal sense. All the reliable sources, for the last 900 years state that Wales is a country. My proposed definition of countries in Commons also includes Wales, as it participates in certain international events as a separate country. I'm clarifying my definition to explicitly say that all constituent countries are included in my proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the definition of a country? A sovereign state is a country but a country is not necessarily a sovereign state. In fact, the colonizing sovereign state will say the colonized place is not a country. Puerto Rico is a country, AND a territory of the US. Easy enough? No, because once you say "it's a territory of the US" everyone automatically assumes it is located in the US, which it is not. The US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.- the US territories are not in the US and categories all over commons say they are in the US. They should be categorized as "countries", and "territories" of the US. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current scope of Category:Countries is sovereign states, regardless of current status or level of recognition. This is not an attempt to "define" the word "countries", but instead simply the use of the word "countries" to describe this category. I'm not sure what you mean by Puerto Rico not being in the US, because of course it is, as are Guam, VI, etc. They are not in the 'states of the US', but neither is DC. They are not in the 'contiguous US', but neither are Alaska or Hawaii. There are legal differences under US law between them and the states, but that kind of accentuates the fact that they are indeed in the United States. Josh (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort to find a resolution here. The English word "countries" has multiple definitions, many quite commonly used, and we should not be attempting to either define the word, nor select among its meanings to determine which of those definitions is most valid. The Commons Category:Countries has adopted this word as its name as a way to describe its contents, and so the real question is whether this should be retained or if a different name should be adopted. I don't think there is any debate that a category with a scope encompassing the sovereign/independent countries/states/territories of the world is valid category scope, just a question as to the name, and if the name is not retained, if the word "countries" should be adopted by another category with a different scope.

While you have done a laudable job collecting a list of entities which may by one definition or another be called "countries", some in reality belong nested within others. Empires are Sovereign states. Non-self-governing territories, Colonies, and Constituent countries of the United Kingdom are all Dependent territories. That would in reality leave only two sub-categories of Countries from your list: Sovereign states and Dependent territories. This would lend much more to your new Category:Countries being actually made as a dab, not a fully-fleshed category page. I also wonder if Territories isn't a better descriptor in this case. Josh (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Countries category should never be converted into a dab page, given the wide use of the term throughout Commons. Instead, Countries should be retained as a parent of Sovereign states, Dependent territories and Constituent countries (constituent countries are administrative divisions, not dependent territories). In my definition, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a country, and its constituents (Netherlands and Dutch Caribbean territories) are also countries. In this case, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a sovereign state, Netherlands and three semi-sovereign Dutch Caribbean territories (Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean) are Constituent countries, and other Dutch Caribbean territories are Dependent territories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 For what it is worth, I agree with you that countries as a dab would not be good. I'm certainly not suggesting that, and that is part of why I do not support converting Category:Countries to cover the range you suggest. Sovereign states, dependent territories, and constituent countries are three different and distinct types of territories. Creating a category to specifically group them together arbitrarily while not including other territories such as federal subjects, autonomous republics, free and sovereign states, or other such conventions which exist around the world is non-sensical and puts Commons categorizers in the position of deciding which entities do or don't get put under 'countries' on the basis of...well I'm not really sure, based on the above conversation. You want to put the Netherlands under Countries because "country" is in its title, but then do you think the states of Mexico should be listed under Sovereign states? Afterall, their actual title is "Free and Sovereign State of X".

Instead, the current status quo of Countries being sovereign states is clear and objective, and ensures that constituent entities are listed under their sovereign state instead of along-side, avoiding several technical categorization problems that, while not intended by your proposal, are indeed consequences that your proposal will cause. Josh (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of countries as a synonym of "sovereign states" is a good idea, and simplifies many technical categorisation issues. The question of whether Wales is a country is already solved with the creation of a dedicated Constituent countries, which include administrative divisions named "countries". The recreated Sovereign states would be redirected back to Countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I have encountered a problem concerning Denmark and the Netherlands when I strictly define a country as a sovereign state. Mainland Denmark and mainland Netherlands are constituent countries of respective kingdoms and they are widely categorised under "by country" categories. So I think a country could be a sovereign state or a constituent country, while dependent territories are not countries. This also fixes the problem with the Countries of the Antarctic category, which is CFDed by Auntof6, assuming the term "country" implying a sovereign state. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Instead of expanding the scope of Countries to include non-sovereign entities, I think the scope of Categories by country should be expanded to include sovereign states, dependent territories, subdivisions named "countries" and regions participate in international events as "countries". Compare with the scope of Categories by city, which basically include all populated places regardless of status. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the scope of Countries would be reverted to sovereign states only. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Perhaps I am confused by this suggestion, but why would we use the same word to indicate one scope when used as a topic name and another when used as a sort criteria name in category names? Normally, I would expect that in "Category:X by Y", the scopes of the main categories "Category:X" and "Category:Y" would be consistent with X and Y's use in the X by Y category. To do otherwise would seem ripe for confusion and a breeding ground for a tug-of-war between the two concepts. It seems inconsistent with the Universality Principle as well, so it seems problematic on the surface to me. Also, I wouldn't suggest 'city' as an example concept. At least we have a concise objective scope for countries currently, but cities is, as you allude to, so broad as to be practically undefined. 'Countries' should be kept that way, with the current, objective scope, through all Commons category structures, consistent with the UP. It certainly should not be drifted towards the far more nebulous 'cities'. Josh (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are right. I'm also concerned with the CFD on Ireland, where we have problems with "in Ireland" categories. Since the island of Ireland is not a sovereign state as a whole (it is divided into the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom), we cannot put the "in Ireland" categories into Categories by country. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of Republic of Ireland categories that are merely named Ireland still, and they require individually fixing to check if they are really specific to Republic of Ireland or general to the region/island. Ireland categories definitely do not belong in countries, that would be where Republic of Ireland belongs, instead Ireland can be in a by region index. Placing Ireland under countries would encourage users to continue to misuse the term for Republic of Ireland matters. I was hoping that Ireland CfD was ready for resolution, and hopefully it is, but you can see comments specific to Ireland there. Josh (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should close the discussion with a consensus to redefine the term "country" as a sovereign state ~~and a constituent country~~. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That would put two different kinds of things into the same category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I have struck "constituent countries" for now. Let an uninvolved and experienced user close this discussion. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. I don't think it's true that only sovereign states are countries. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a good idea to consider only sovereign states as countries in most cases per COM:CAT's simplicity principle. Dependent territories and constituent countries (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland etc.) can be put under "by country" categories like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar]], where Foo is a topic and Bar is a non-sovereign territory often grouped with countries. The Sovereign states category may be retained for sovereign states like the Kingdom of the Netherlands (covering Netherlands+Dutch Caribbean) and the Kingdom of Denmark (covering Denmark+Faroe Islands+Greenland), whose mainlands are considered countries (Netherlands and Denmark respectively). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that The Economist wrote in 2010 that "any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies." However, I have (somehow) managed to find a somewhat clear definition of a country. Countries are generally sovereign states with only one exception:

The constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are considered as separate countries, while the respective kingdoms are considered as sovereign states only.

The discussion was supposed to be whether the Constituent countries of the United Kingdom should be considered as separate countries or not. As per the arguments of Joshbaumgartner, the constituents of the UK may not be considered as separate countries, although they may be considered as separate sporting countries. On the other hand, numerous reliable sources have designated them as "countries" (see Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs) and the Wikipedia has a consensus in Talk:Wales to designate them as countries. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413, @The Eloquent Peasant, there is no single definition of the word country. There are a million different ways to define it, or combinations of what is or is not within such definitions. It is not the purpose of Commons or our categorization scheme to try and decide one which one is 'right'. All of those definitions are valid and thus both statements, "Wales is a country" and "Wales is not a country", are both perfectly valid, depending on which definition one uses. Commons cannot and should not decide or declare one or the other correct. That is why categorization is not a statement or definition, it is merely a way to gather things into manageable groups within a hierarchical scheme to assist users in finding content. The only question before us really is whether or not Category:Countries should encompass everything that is considered a country under any definition, or if it should be scope-limited to only a particular definition for practical purposes (i.e. those which are sovereign states). In reality, either way, something like Category:Wales or Category:Germany is still going to be under Category:Countries, it is just a question of whether to put it directly there or to put it there via a sub-category (e.g. Category:Constituent countries, or Category:Sovereign states). The most practical and clear cut way is to categorize sovereign states directly under Category:Countries and for all other 'types' of countries to be under sub-categories. Putting sovereign states as well in their own sub-category may be technically fine, but on a practical level will require a metric ton or ten of work to implement consistently across Commons. Josh (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: So all sovereign states are countries but not all countries are sovereign states. Isn't that an easy way to categorize? Cat 1 sovereign states and Cat 2 other . Reader's Digest has a nice write-up about it and Wales is on the list. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant Indeed, that is what I meant when I said that putting sovereign states in their own sub-category of countries, just as constituent countries and other 'types' of countries, would be technically-speaking an elegant solution (note: "other" is not workable, it would be cat 2, 3, 4, etc. with each for one 'type' of country...we don't do other/misc. type categorization). Practically-speaking it is a massive change to the current practice, that is not to say it wouldn't be the right way, but only if it comes with a viable plan for how to convert the tens of thousands of impacts that is going to have on current practice. I'm not one to shy away from a big project, but doing it as some kind of declaration without a good plan to implement, demonstration of a real understanding of the many downstream consequences of the change, and without a bit more buy-in from other folks seems a recipe for a well-intentioned mess. That is why for the time-being, I come down on the side of maintaining the status quo, with Category:Countries being for sovereign states and sub-cats for each of the other types. That said, were someone to actually propose a workable plan that accounts for the points mentioned above and seems actually effective at implementing the new scheme consistently without it becoming a giant fight, I may well support such an effort, and if it garners broad support and buy in from different corners, including sufficient users with the experience at different aspects (categorization, templates, navigation, etc.) to actually make it a success, I'll put my shoulder to that wheel. Without that though, I can't in good conscience support a change yet. Josh (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Absolutely. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support categorizing sovereign states (except the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands) directly under the country categories, and Josh's new proposal to categorize "other entities considered countries" to relevant subcats under country categories. Also, if there are no such subcats, such entities should be categorized directly under the country categories as [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar]]. I had initially created Countries and territories as an attempt to define countries as sovereign states only. However, that can be deleted once this discussion is closed. Since the term "country" has no universal definition, Dependent territories, Constituent countries and Non-self-governing territories can be considered as types of countries, as long as we don't run into "a thicket of exceptions and anomalies". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick overview and some additions

At first glance, this discussion seems to be just about Wales. But it turns out it is also about definitions (and what subcategories should be placed in) and the relations between countries, sovereign states and other territories. And it looks like the decisions about these questions will be made here, though they have consequences for more countries than just Wales. So now it is time for me to join this discussion.
We have:

Category:Sovereign states
Category:Countries: in Commons they are the same as Sovereign states (so why do we need two categories?).
Category:Constituent countries: If a country is part of a sovereign state (I prefer the term "part of" above "occupied by" because there are countries that are part of a sovereign state by free choice and "part of " is a more neutral term) then it is called a "constituent country". So in my opinion Wales is a constituent country in Commons, but not a souvereign state itself (same for England, Scotland, Denmark, the Netherlands and three islands of the Dutch Caribbean).
Category:Nations
Category:Ethnic groups (People)
Category:Dependent territories, not being countries, an umbrella term.
Category:Territories

Josh requested a workable plan for implementation. But before we can make such a plan, we need to know what exactly the problems are and how we want to solve them. Above I saw a lot of opinions and statements, some questions, but very little well-defined problems. So what exactly would we like to implement? What should be changed?

Closely related to Josh' request for a workable plan is the question: how should constituent countries, souvereign states and other territories (dependent or not) be treated in templates? Because when we add parent categories and navigation boxes manually, we ourselves can choose the ones we think are right. But in templates it is "one size fits all" and then things go wrong for the exceptions (suddenly "the Netherlands" is no longer a country of Europe in navigation boxes, as it was for many years, but "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" is, which has by far not as many categories as the Netherlands itself, and it is one click extra to get to the requested category for the Netherlands; and equally suddenly categories of the Netherlands get parent categories for North America because it has two small islands there, defined as municipalities, while there are no categories for those island for the topics involved; by the way, this also applies to France (and other countries with overseas territories, like the USA and UK), which gets automatically parent categories for Africa or other continents). Correcting those exceptions manually is an option (remove the template and add parents and navigation templates yourself), but the first passer-by editor will change it back again.

Questions

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant:

Why do we need two categories: countries as well as sovereign states, while they are about the same concept?
What definitions/descriptions do we use on Commons for the categories involved (see list above)? I think we need an overview with short descriptions.
What are the relations between them?
What kind of subcategories should be placed in them?
What exactly are the problems to be solved? Please one by one, each in one sentence/compact.
What are solutions to these problems?
Is there a conclusion for the discussion about Wales? Can that part of the discussion be closed?

Please add questions if you know more (and add your name to them).

Problems to be solved

How to handle exceptions in templates for countries, like constituent countries and territories overseas? [JopkeB]
1. Should we treat them as countries?
  All sovereign states should be called "countries" in Commons, including states with limited recognition. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands should be called "countries" only if they participate in certain international events or organizations as a single unit. Otherwise, their constituents will be considered as separate countries. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The constituent countries of the United Kingdom should be called "countries" only if they participate in certain international events or organizations separately. Otherwise, they will be considered as parts of the UK. Also, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland may be considered as countries if they participate in certain international events or organizations as such. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The dependent territories should generally be considered as separate from their parent countries. They can be listed with countries like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar]], where Foo is a topic and Bar is a dependent territory. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree But this means that there is not "one size fits all" solution and we have to differentiate:
  for sports events, for example, "countries" might be a mix of dependent territories and sovereign states; some sovereign states are not participating, only their dependent territories;
  
  in the United Nation, for example, only sovereign states are participating, not their dependent territories.
  
  This might have consequences for the solutions we implemented so far. JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. What is more important: political aspects (constituent countries and territories overseas are part of sovereign states) or geographical ones (they are part of a specific continent)?
  The answer to this question is tricky, because both sides have their own problems. If you consider the political aspects, countries like France and the United Kingdom would spread across five continents. If you consider the geographical aspects, you have to consider the Asian and European sides of Russia and Turkey as separate countries. So my proposal is to use the political aspects for countries like Russian and Turkey, and geographical ones for other countries. In the latter case, the countries will be categorized according to their main continents (like the USA to North America) and the overseas territories to their own continents, even though they are not dependent territories (like Hawaii to Oceania). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree I think this would be a good solution. The big question is: how can we implement it?
  - For example, I think it is not an option to split Russia and Turkey into seperate categories for the Asian and European sides of them. Uptill now the solution for navigation boxes is, to have both a European and an Asian template for them. That works well, so we can keep this solution untill we find a better one.
  - That leaves us to find a solution for France, the United Kingdom and other sovereign countries that spread across two or more continents. I guess somewhere on Commons there is a list (that I cannot find) that defines the continents for each sovereign country (and perhaps other territories), because the parent categories of both (France and UK) are only Europe. I suppose that list should be adjusted.
  JopkeB (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Should France, the Netherlands, Denmark, USA, and so on, always get parent categories of continents for all of their territories, even if there are no categories for that topic for the other territories?
  As said above, these countries will be categorized according to their main continents, where overseas territories belonging to other continents are excluded. Those territories will be categorized to their parent countries and their own continents. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Agree JopkeB (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Or should regular templates be left out in the exceptions and should parent categories and navigation boxes be added manually, with a note for editors not to add those templates?
  This would obviously be a setback for implementing the {{Topic by country}} series of templates. However, the exceptions can be easily addressed by editing the subtemplates of {{Country label}}. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  OK. But I do not understand the Country label, I need a more extensive explanation in plain English, for laypersons like me, about when to use it (in what kind of situations), what it exactly does, with examples. JopkeB (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Or should regular templates always be added and do we accept a lot of red parent categories, odd parent categories of continents and countries being left out in navigation boxes?
  We should try to minimize red parent categories where possible. If you can eliminate unuseful regions from the subtemplates of {{Country label}}, you may get fewer red parent categories for them. You can also edit the {{Topic by country/data}} template for the same reason, but I won't recommend to do it without a good knowledge of the entire category structure. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  At first sight the Topic by country/date looks usable. I have to work with it to see whether this is a good solution. JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add problems (and perhaps solutions) if you know more (and add your name to them).

Wishes and criteria for solutions

Via navigation boxes by continent you can easily jump from territory to territory within that continent, no matter whether it is to contries, constituent countries or dependent territories. [JopkeB]

Please add wishes and criteria if you know more (and add your name to them).
--JopkeB (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: I was away from this discussion for more than a month, because the discussion is becoming too long. I gave different contradictory proposals to agree with the common usage of the term "country". I have since found that the term "country" has been used differently in different contexts. So it is very problematic to provide a unique solution for this problem. I've replied to all of your queries. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that while the {{Topic by country}} series of templates can categorize a country to its predetermined continent automatically, they cannot do it for its constituent regions. So I have to add continent categories manually for those regions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the category Sovereign states is no longer necessary, since all sovereign states are considered countries. The kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands can be listed with other countries like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar, Kingdom of]]. In certain sports, the "by country" categories should be read as "by sporting country", and if (say) England, Wales and Scotland participate as different countries in that sports, they will be directly categorized under "by country" categories, while their corresponding sovereign state (UK) will be categorized with other countries like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+United Kingdom]]. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of the US territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) also compete separately. Would there be any value in using a different term for these cases? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All US territories, excluding DC, are already considered as dependent territories in Commons, and dependent territories will get the same status as their parent countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sbb1413: for your remarks. It is OK to not participating for a while. I agree, this discussion is becoming very long, it has many aspects, is about an important subject and is complicated. That implies: no simple solution. JopkeB (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Category:Diasporas by country of origin, where I have arranged the sovereign states alphabetically, while dependent territories and constituent countries are arranged under +. This can act as a template for implementing my proposal, if accepted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if my proposal is accepted, a mechanism must be implemented at {{Topic by country}} to allow subnational entities to be designated as countries. Otherwise, the template won't be implemented for subnational entities called "countries", including dependent territories and constituent countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: At first glance Category:Diasporas by country of origin looks good.

For clearity reasons: Can you please write here (again) your proposal in the form of action points, starting with a subheading in bold, mentioning "Proposal to/for ..." (with the purpose of the proposal, what should it solve)? JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided my detailed proposal below. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sbb1413: for attempting a solution and pinging me. Sorry for not signing my previous comment. I see there there are categories that do not belong in sovereign states, like Category:Diaspora by country of origin, which does not presently include the Basque diaspora.

However, I see it is made up of national groups, rightfully so, and not states, or countries, of origin. What would you call a Palestinian diaspora if the Palestinians abroad come from present-day state of Israel, "Diaspora of Israel"? Nonsense. What about the diaspora of the Armenians, they do not often come from present-day Armenia. In the case of the diaspora at least, "by national groups" works better, but let's face it, these categories will never be totally defined/close, reality is much more stubborn.

Not sure if I understand the template "Topic by country" either, but I may need to read calmly the rationale behind it. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do believe Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands etc. are "countries" and should be categorized as countries. There was a discussion about whether these are "part of the US" and it led to a change to the United States wikipedia article lead. Now the United States article on English Wikipedia states "Outside the union of states, it asserts sovereignty over five major unincorporated island territories and various uninhabited islands." See discussion if you're interested. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Sbb1413

For countries in general

In general, countries should be equated to sovereign states, which is the most obvious definition of the term "country". Dependent territories should be considered parts of parent countries. However, in Category:Categories by country, both sovereign states and dependent territories should be listed together, where sovereign states are categorized alphabetically and dependent territories are categorized under +. The {{Topic by country}} templates can be implemented in this case.

For Denmark and the Netherlands

The categorization of the two countries depend on whether the categories for parent kingdoms exist or not. If such categories exist, they will be categorized alphabetically, while the constituent countries will be categorized under +. Otherwise, the constituents will be categorized alphabetically. The {{Topic by country}} templates should be implemented if the categories for parent kingdoms exist. Otherwise, don't implement the templates.

For member countries of an organization

If a political entity is a member of an international organization with other countries, it should be considered as a member country of that organization. For example, England and West Indies are members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) along with other member countries. So England and West Indies can also be called member countries of the ICC even though they are not sovereign states (West Indies consists of Guyana and a bunch of island countries of the Caribbean).

For transcontinental countries

For countries with territories across multiple continents, generally only the continent where the mainland (or capital) is situated should be taken as the parent continent. If the other territories in different continents are connected with the mainland (naturally or with bridges/tunnels), then the parent country should belong to multiple continents. For example, Russia and Turkey would belong to both Asia and Europe because Russia's Asian territory (Siberia and the Far East) is connected with its European territory by the Ural Mountains, while Turkey's European territory (Eastern Thrace) is connected with ite Asian territory (Anatolia) by bridges. On the other hand, Indonesia would belong to Asia only, because its Oceanian territory (Western New Guinea) is not connected with the rest of the country naturally or with bridges/tunnels.

The proposal is subject to change. Discuss my proposal below. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks, Sbb1413, for your proposal. It looks good! My comment:

Agree "countries should be equated to sovereign states". Does this means that Category:Sovereign states is redundant and should be deleted? If we agree, then I think, after this discussion has been closed, we should start a seperate discussion about this category.
"both sovereign states and dependent territories should be listed together": Question Do you mean that even if there is a category for the sovereign state, the dependent territories should still be mentioned under the +? (So also for France, the USA and other countries?)
"For Denmark and the Netherlands": Agree.
"For member countries of an organization": Agree
"For transcontinental countries": Agree

The first step is: do others agree as well? @Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant: please give your comment as well.
If yes, then the next question is: What would be a workable plan for implementation? Sbb1413 provided the impetus for this, but perhaps further elaboration is needed. --JopkeB (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: , let me second JopkeB's thanks for your effort in clearly laying out your proposal above. My comments:

Strong support the scope of Category:Countries as sovereign states. As to JopkeB's question, Category:Sovereign states should become a redirect to Category:Countries as they will have identical scope.
When it comes to mixing sovereign and dependent entities:
- Oppose co-mingling sovereign states with dependent territories in most cases, however, for those cases where there is good cause to co-mingle them:
- Support the idea of assigning an alternate sort key to separate dependent territories from the sovereign states in any cases where they are categorized in the same category. However, keeping sort order in mind, "+" is not a good choice for this assignment, as it would sort them ahead of sovereign states, which seems out of order. Instead, a key such as "{" would place them after the main sovereign states. However, dependent territories and sovereign states should be intermingled only in limited cases, such as the Netherlands and Denmark or within a specific topic such as particular organizations (see below).
Support using the official recognition of members of international organizations as countries within the topic of these organizations, but that definition is only applicable to categories specific to the organization. Essentially, it makes no sense to impose Commons' Category:Countries definition on the list of member countries of the IOC, and likewise, the IOC's interpretation of what is a country should not be applied to any categories not specific to the IOC.
Support the idea of categorizing constituent countries as if they were sovereign states in cases where the sovereign state category does not exist, and in cases where it does exist, categorizing them in 'by country' indices with a "{" (see above for sort key discussion) sort key leader.
Strong oppose trying to define the continent of a country in any way that severs the link between a country and any continent on which they have territory. I appreciate the attempt to define some kind of contiguous standard, but it gets convoluted and fails to recognize the reality of the modern sovereign state. Just because a piece of territory is far away or has a water barrier or what have you doesn't make it any less the country's territory than the very steps of their capital building. Hawaii is as much part and parcel of the US as Washington DC or NYC are, but the proposed limits would discount this and essentially give the impression that Hawaii and other US possessions in the Pacific are not really the important part of the US, not like their North American territories are at least. Essentially, the only non-ambiguous way to define what continent a country is associated with that doesn't inherently build in a value judgement is whether or not they have sovereign territory on that continent. If they do, then they are a country of that continent. If you want to have a sub-category such as 'countries with capitals in Europe' or 'countries with the majority of their territory in Africa' because you deem such a distinction as worth having, go ahead, but for say, Countries of Europe or Countries of Africa, the only criteria should be simple and objective: if they have territory in Africa, they are a country of Africa; if they have territory in Europe, they are a country of Europe. I see no reason why we would exclude a country just because we deem their territory on a given continent to be too small, different, far, unconnected, or otherwise for our taste.

Josh (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia Wales is in "Category:United Kingdom by country" and Category:Sovereign states redirects to Category:Countries. We have Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom and Category:Constituent countries which lists others so maybe Category:Sovereign states is redundant but there is Category:Countries by status which includes Sovereign states so I'd say maybe its not redundant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rigid categories for national groups, but will not oppose "country" as sovereign state, per general usage in English, with all its nuances, as pointed above. It remains pretty disturbing that either "sovereign state", or "nation", or "country" should all refer to the same thing, while other national realities are reduced to ethnic groups, or other categories. As shown in the "Diaspora by country of origin", origins are not strictly sovereign states, or countries, but national groups (see my comment above). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not proposed anything on what to do with national groups yet. I'm trying to fix the definition of "country" in Commons, not the definition of "nation", which is a different thing. The problem is that the "People of country" categories are usually assumed to represent a national group by default, which needs to be fixed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would not like to keep the discussion in aeternum, so as fas as I am concerned, go ahead with "country" as sovereign state. I still believe a solution for national communities is needed in Commons categories, all the more obvious if we talk about historical periods. They may overlap, or not, the category "country". Iñaki LL (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions discussion about the Proposal by Sbb1413

For countries in general
1. no agreement yet about how to mention countries and dependent territories in categories:
  1. there might be consensus about a proposal to sort sovereign states and dependent territories differently, but we need more discussion about how to do that exactly
2. a seperate discussion is needed about the merger of Sovereign states and Countries, also because there are doubts
For Denmark and the Netherlands: no objections.
For member countries and organizations: it looks like there is an agreement; but we should be aware that what a "country" is, may differ per organization (like ICC, IOC and FIFA). So: no objections.
For transcontinental countries: No agreement
New: we also need a discussion about nations/national groups/ national communities/ethnic groups. My proposal is to keep a discussion about these subjects out of this discussion and limit this discussion to countries, states and dependent territories. Someone can start elsewhere a discussion about this matter.

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant: :

Do you agree with this summary?
If yes: Actions to be taken:
- Continu the discussion about How to sort sovereign states and dependent territories in categories?: how should that be done exactly?
- Start a seperate discussion about the merger of Sovereign states and Countries.
- Adjust the proposal for transcontinental countries.
- Start a seperate discussion about nations/national groups/national communities/ethnic groups and how they fit in countries and souvereign states.

--JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Denmark and the Netherlands and the United Kingdom countries should be treated in the same way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and the Netherlands should be treated according to my proposal. Since the UK is generally considered as a single country and not as a kingdom of multiple countries, it should be listed like other countries alphabetically. However, when the constituent countries of the UK participate in certain organizations/events separately, they should be listed with other countries instead. In that case, the UK may be listed separately with the sortkey '+' (for supranational countries). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the summary. My comments on the possible actions:

I agree with Joshbaumgartner that dependencies should be listed below sovereign states in Category:Categories by country. I have no problems with his suggested sortkey '{'.
The discussion on Category:Sovereign states will be opened after the closure of this discussion. As per my proposal, the separate category on sovereign states is redundant and should be redirected to Category:Countries.
Although Joshbaumgartner's comment on transcontinental countries sounds logical, it contradicts the common sense. My proposal is based on the common sense, where countries like the UK, the US and France are associated only with the continent of their mainlands (Europe for the UK and France, North America for the US). However, I have no problems with Josh's comment.
I had already opened a discussion on Category:Nations two weeks ago (Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Nations), which can be used to discuss stuff related to national/ethnic groups. I have also noticed another related discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/04/Category:Categories by nationality.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work on this. In the real world a sovereign state is a subclass of countries; as a temporary measure, if it helps, I'll compromise. Where I can't compromise is where the information is biased: Wales is a country and referred to it as a country, not as a constituent country of the cosmos, World, Europe or the UK. Classifying Wales as a 'Constituent country of the UK' only happens outside Wales, usually by the unionist of Westminster, who attempt to keep Wales a part of the UK. 90% of all sources classify Wales as a 'country', endof, whether we like it or not. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with the fact that virtually all reliable sources classify Wales as a country. However, it is not a sovereign state. Rather, it is a part of another sovereign state (UK). Virtually all reliable sources agree that sovereign states are countries and we want to use it as the primary definition of Category:Countries. This is why we use the term "constituent countries" for political entities called "countries" that are parts of sovereign states, which can be put under Category:Countries by status. Countries like Wales can be put under Category:Countries by name but with a different sortkey (preferably '{'), since Wales is not a sovereign state. Category:Dependent territories may or may not be countries, depending on context. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying Wales as a 'Constituent country of the UK' only happens outside Wales, usually by the unionist of Westminster, who attempt to keep Wales a part of the UK. Sounds like a politically motivated statement. We generally don't accept such non-neutral ideas in any Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia. Yes, you might be critical to the union state of four countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), but the fact that they are parts of a union state cannot be erased. Wales is indeed a part of the UK, be it a so-called "unionist" opinion, or be it the fact accepted by the whole academia researching on Britain and Ireland. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State of affairs

We agree upon:

Category:Sovereign states is redundant and may get a redirect to Category:Countries; a seperate DR will be made after this discussion has been closed.
What a "Country" is, is dependent on the context: for sports organizations and events there may be a mix of dependent territories and sovereign states; UN members are only sovereign states.
Constituent countries may be categorized as if they were sovereign states in cases where the sovereign state category does not exist.
- In that case: Assigning an alternate sort key to separate dependent territories from the sovereign states, but only where they are categorized in the same category and with a key such as "{" which places them after the main sovereign states. Intermingling dependent territories and sovereign states should be limited to specific cases, such as the Netherlands and Denmark or within a specific topic such as particular organizations.
Russia and Turkey should both be treated as one country, with parts of them being in two continents. Templates should reflect this.
Category: Nations is not part of this discussion; Sbb1413 has opened a seperate discussion for this subject.

We do not agree upon:

How countries should be treated that are associated with more than one continent. [My personal opinion:] I think it still is odd (perhaps even misleading) to have continent Africa as a parent for France for a specific topic category, if there is no such category for at least one of its dependant territories in Africa (or the Netherlands for North America, or any other country for any continent).

Outstanding questions:

How can we solve the issue of continent parents for countries that are on more than one continent?
What is {{Country label}} for? When should it be used (in what kind of situations), what does it exactly do? Please give also examples.

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant: : Do you agree with this summary? Do you have suggestions to solve the questions? --JopkeB (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, Josh's argument for associating countries with overseas possessions with overseas continents contradicts the common sense. We generally tend to categorize countries like France and the UK as countries of Europe and not as countries of Africa, Asia, North America, South America etc. In my opinion, we should stick to the common sense and categorize the overseas possessions to their parent categories as well as to their parent continents. For example, the categories of Category:French Guiana are categorized under both France and South America, while France itself should be categorized under Europe only, as its mainland/capital is in Europe. Similarly, we categorize the categories of Category:Centre Spatial Guyanais (Guiana Space Centre, a spaceport in French Guiana) under both France and South America.
There should be no question for the template {{Country label}}, which is originally created as part of the {{Topic by country}} series of templates. I have added the "adjective" parameter in the template for my {{National navigation}} and {{National diaspora}} templates. {{National navigation}} should be used on cases where categories are named like "[country adjective] [topic]", like the diaspora categories. Of course, we generally don't name categories like "[country adjective] [topic]", according to our guidelines. Instead, we name categories like "[topic] of [country]" or "[topic] from [country]".

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only case where we should avoid the {{Topic by country}} series of templates is the categories of constituent countries if the category for their corresponding sovereign state is missing, and we don't have categories for other constituent countries of the state. For that case, we should manually categorize the country with other countries alphabetically. For example, if we have a category of Category:England and we don't have categories of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, then we may categorize England directly with other countries alphabetically. Of course, such situation has rarely occurred with England/UK, but it occurs often with Denmark/Kingdom of Denmark and the Netherlands/Kingdom of the Netherlands. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Sbb1413, but I can't disagree with you more on your continent comments. Appeals to common sense are a poor basis for rational argument. The truth is that common sense isn't so common; it is highly dependent on individual perspective and experience and merely masquerades as some kind of universal truth in our minds. But that aside, your argument lacks reason...more specifically it lacks a reason why we need to restrict a country to only some of its territory: the part the Anglo-centric community most readily associates with a given country. Make no mistake, if you asked me to point to France on a globe, I'd probably spin it to Europe, point to Metropolitan France and say voila. Yes, I get that France is first and foremost a European country, and if we were asking for the primary continent of a country, you might have a point. But we aren't. Listing France as a country of South America is very valuable from an educational perspective, as not everyone may be aware of the important territorial holdings they have there or on other continents as readily as they may be aware of their European holdings. Cutting France out of the list of South American holdings eliminates this educational opportunity (the fundamental reason for the existence of the project). Likewise if a users is perusing the countries of North America, why should they not see France listed? France is a North American country. It may not as readily come to mind as Europe, but it is no less true. Yes, you can list Guadaloupe under North America as if it were a country, but this merely confuses the matter by both obfuscating the fact that it is French territory, and portraying it as a sovereign state which it is not. A user can of course dig deeper and learn these facts, but why hide them under a layer for no good reason? Which is in the end the hardest thing I have with your proposal: besides going against your particular take on common sense, even if the problems with your proposal could be mitigated, there doesn't appear to be any concrete need to do it. I see the many losses it brings, but where's the win? Josh (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Suppose you are looking for a photo about subject A in South America. You are clicking on Subject A in France and then you cannot find any subcategory about South America, because none of the French territories in South America has a category about subject A. Do you have a solution for this situation? JopkeB (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Good question, but I'm not sure how that differs from if you simply replace South America with Europe in your question. I do not have a solution for that per se, but I'm not sure how the proposal solves it either, or even that it is really a problem. "Categories" do not necessarily equal "classes". They are hierarchical relationships, but if A is under B is under C, it does not necessarily mean that all instances under A are instances of C, as a class relationship (e.g. Wikidata's 'subclass of'/'instance of' system) would indicate. That obviously is true for many categories, but not for all. Thus while France is certainly under Europe, there are many contents under France that are not Europe. If you have navigated to France from Europe (or South America), there should be no expectation that everything there will be of Europe (or South America), and indeed there may be topics under France which have absolutely nothing which is of Europe (or South America). Removing France from South America but leaving it in Europe certainly does not change this. Perhaps the case could be made that your situation indicates that connecting countries to continents at all is problematic, but I don't think anyone is yet proposing completely doing away with country-to-continent categorization. Josh (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I agree that categories do not always equal classes. But I would like to limit those cases as much as possible. And I think Sbb1413 has proposed a fine solution that will solve this problem:

Only the continent where the mainland (or capital) is situated should be taken as the parent continent. So for Category:France only Europe will be the parent category for the continent.
Categorize the overseas possessions to their parent categories as well as to their own continents. For example: the categories of French Guiana are categorized under both France and South America, while the categories for the mainland of France in Europe should be categorized under Europe only.

So the links between for instance Hawaii and the USA will stay, but the links to the continent of Hawaii and USA will be indirect, through Hawaii only.

And I think this should not be about whether a part of a country seems "important" or not, but about the end user searching for pictures of a continent; the outcome should not be that (s)he is directed to the wrong continent. Would you please consider the proposal of Sbb1413 as a solution for this problem?

User:Sbb1413: Did I summarize your proposal correctly? JopkeB (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB I absolutely have carefully considered whether Sbb1413's proposal would solve the problem as I understand it, and I laid out clearly how it does not solve that problem at all as far as I can see. However, I am open to the idea that maybe I just am missing what the actual problem is you are really seeing with having France listed in North America and such. I might be the stupid one here, so please forgive me for asking for additional explanation, but what exactly is the problem we are trying solve here? I have also detailed many problems would be caused by implementing this proposal. Even if it may solve one problem, doing so by creating several new ones isn't really forward progress.

(Side note, I have great respect for both Sbb1413 and yourself, and the good work that both of you do. I do not comment here lightly or without considering the words and ideas you both present before replying. I hope to get the same level of respect in return. I am not trying to be difficult or dismissive here, and I am not staked to my idea being the only solution, which hopefully is evident from the many discussions we have had in the past, most all of which have reached constructive conclusions, many of them different from either of our initial ideas. I do not think Sbb1413 has presented a bad idea, just one I disagree with vehemently. I have listed my concerns in detail but for the most part these do not seem to have been addressed very comprehensively. Also, I want to be clear: while I do feel this proposal would have the effect of biasing certain perspectives and be problematic as a result, I in no way would assume that either you nor Sbb1413 have any intention of promoting bias or prejudice. I assume good intentions on both of your parts in all of this. This is solely a discussion about the proposal, its details, and its consequences.)

Before we adopt any proposal, three basic steps should be taken:

Show a demonstrable improvement to Commons (or WM as a whole) that the proposal would make (this could be solving a problem, or just a pure improvement, or some combo)
Understand the other consequences that implementation would have, in particular negative ones, and if applicable, show how any negatives can be mitigated
Determine if the improvements expected from step 1 will be sufficiently beneficial to the whole that the negatives identified in step 2, considering mitigations, are acceptable (i.e. Do the wins outweigh the losses?)

Thus far, I have seen very little of #1, and almost none of #2, so #3 isn't even feasible yet. I would really appreciate further elaboration on #1 and some dialog on #2 before being asked to get onboard a proposal I have clear concerns about. Thank you, Josh (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please implement this asap. People in the UK for example is in the cat "People of South America" or "People of Africa". Once that is done, maybe it would be good to consider removing these cats entirely or adding them only to finer subcategories or something. WMC categorization means all the files/subcategories are part of / relate to the parent category which is clearly not the case here. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Prototyperspective: , that is exactly what I mean. Good example. JopkeB (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sbb1413 for your work on the listed templates. I was using the parameter "adj" for adjectival form in some previous work, but I am pretty settled on category names almost always being in noun form, not adjective, and confusing country categories with 'nation' categories is one of the reasons. Many years ago, I did do some categorization using the adjectival form for countries on some aircraft categories, but pretty readily regretted it. Adjectival forms are not nearly as regulated as country names, and so different forms creep in (e.g. "Argentine"/"Argentinian", "United States"/"American"), and for several countries, there just isn't an adjectival form that really works, so when to just use the noun in the adjective position is a question. In the end, I think you are right that when actually speaking of the country, we should use noun form in category name, such as "Aircraft in Argentina", "People from the United States", etc. Thank you again for good work on the templates and trying to unravel country vs. nation categorization schemes. Josh (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea with {{Topic by country}} was for it to work fine for both sovereign states and dependent territories, including constituent countries. It does depend on the entity being correctly set up in {{Country label}} so that is a known maintenance issue. Also, I have not made any tweaks to it to take into account some of the recent decisions such as the Denmark/Netherlands consensus, and not sure if anyone else has. I still have a lot of museum exhibit pictures from my recent travel to upload, so I'm waiting for the dust to settle on these discussions before I open the hood and make sure the templates are compatible with the consensuses (consensi?...no) reached. However, I try and respond to any pings regarding anything not working right with them. Josh (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Sovereign states is redundant to Countries since a sovereign state is a type of country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale You are completely correct that the English word "country" covers a lot more ground that just sovereign states, and that is why Sovereign states was created as a sub of Countries if I am not mistaken. One of the ideas considered was to have that category used for sovereign states while countries became just a parent for all of the entities that could be a country in any way, shape or form. This runs up against a significant practical barrier, in that the current scope of Category:Countries is as sovereign states, and the sheer quantity of changes that would be necessary to implement this is pretty much off the charts. Since no one was able to propose an actual feasible plan for how to do so successfully, the consensus was to table that and leave the status quo in place, hence Countries be Commons categorization for sovereign states. If such an action plan arises and really does address the massive impact of such a change and mitigate the many consequences, it can be addressed. Until then I still support keeping Countries = Sovereign states. Josh (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I guess if the current convention is to have countries and sovereign states as the same thing it may be best to keep as is like Wikipedia but it may be better to reconsider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely sympathetic to your point. Most of the time I'm not one to shy away from a big project if it means getting it right, but given the sheer size of converting nearly all of our current use of the word 'country' to 'sovereign state' in category naming across the board (not to mention the templates and supporting policy docs that go with it) is too much for even me to go for without it coming with a very good plan for how to do it. Josh (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Josh's statement is true. It is like a teraproject to convert every instances of countries (ambiguous term) into sovereign states (unambiguous term). The opposite is true for Category:Automobiles (unambiguous term) → cars (ambiguous term). Instead, I think we should keep Category:Sovereign states for sovereign states and Category:Countries for (sovereign states+constituent countries+other entities called "countries" depending on context). There is no rigid definition of the term "country", although the term always includes sovereign states. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: @Crouch, Swale: @JopkeB: @The Eloquent Peasant: @Llywelyn2000: @Auntof6: @Place Clichy: Thanks all for your contributions. Sorry for the delay, I could not participate earlier in this last stage, so I will do now. I am not a native English speaker, and this category is related to English usage. According to the above contributions, "country" is not as narrow as I thought, in the sense that it may encompass a semantic threshold wider than sovereign state.

As noted by Sbb1413 above, Automobile is unambiguous, as well as Sovereign states. Put the burden of subcategories on sovereign states where applicable (Topic by sovereign state), avoid redundancy and semantic appropriation (country = sovereign state) and keep country open, as parent, according to the considerations noted, while avoiding all the work involved to change status quo. That I would see as an appropriate summary and the way forward. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iñaki LL, thank you for adding here. It sounds to me like we have broad agreement that the preferred state of affairs would be to have all sovereign states categorized as such in their sub-category, leaving Category:Countries to be the more broadly defined container for Category:Sovereign states and other types of 'countries', each with their own sub-category. Support for keeping the current state of affairs ('Countries' = 'Sovereign states') seems to be pretty much based on the transition being, as Sbb1413 puts it, a 'teraproject'. Thus, it seems the only discussion is to figure out a workable plan to transition from the current state of affairs to our desired state of affairs, and agree that it is worth the effort. If this is done, we should be able to conclude this discussion and begin implementation.

@Crouch, Swale, @JopkeB, @Sbb1413, is this a fair assessment? Josh (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all the above comments, and the only thing we can all agree is that the term "country" is fairly ambiguous when it comes to entities like Category:Constituent countries, Category:States with limited recognition and Category:Dependent territories. We should keep the definition of the term "country" as broad as possible to cover the political meaning. The definition of the category should be written as follows: "A country is a region that is identified as a distinct political entity. A country may be a sovereign state, a constituent country, or a dependent territory." The proposed definition is in line with the political definitions of country in Wikipedia. Although the categories Category:Countries and Category:Sovereign states will coexist, the individual sovereign states will be categorized under Category:Sovereign states by name instead of Category:Countries by name. Similarly, dependent territories and constituent countries will be categorized under Category:Dependent territories by name and Category:Constituent countries by name. This is because of the varying usage of the term "country", and there are cases where the term is used to mean a "sovereign state" only. I had named Category:Countries of the Antarctic in line with other "countries of continent/region" categories and categorized the dependent and claimed territories located in the Antarctic. However, it was nominated with a claim that there are no "countries" in the region, since the entities are not "countries". So, the primary definition of the term "country" should be a "sovereign state", with other definitions used depending on context, and the category Category:Countries of the Antarctic should be renamed to Category:Dependent territories in the Antarctic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the category Category:Countries will be divided into precise categories as said above, the category Category:Categories by country will be kept untouched. The latter should be used to categorize "countries" with varying definitions, like Category:Categories by city. I had created Category:Countries and territories as an attempt to distinguish between dependent territories and other countries. That category will be converted into a dab page once this discussion is over. I request Joshbaumgartner to provide the "constituent country" type in {{Topic by country/layout}} for countries that are parts of another country, including dependent territories, so that the dependent territories can be categorized under "by country" categories with their own sortkeys (preferably "{name}") automatically. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it seems I misunderstood something on Sbb1413's reply at 17:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC). The solution... not my cup of tea, so to say, but as noted above if the Category:Country > Category:Sovereign state transition (and its derivations) is so demanding, then that may be the best way forward. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then the transition should not be abrupt. Instead, create categories for each sovereign states and dependent territories so that someone else can convert the category Category:Countries into a dab page in not-so-distant future. However, I won't support such decision and categories like Category:Countries and Category:Categories by country should be kept, with the primary definition being sovereign states. The separate Category:Sovereign states and Category:Dependent territories will be kept as subcategories of Category:Countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If my proposal is accepted, I would request Joshbaumgartner to add parameters like "constituent country" and "dependent" in {{Topic by country/layout}} for constituent countries and dependent territories respectively. They will be categorized under "by country" categories with the sortkey {name}. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413, once we have a consensus on the framework of what the end-state scheme should look like for this topic, there are two things that I will commit significant time to making sure get done:
top-down review and update of the {{Topic by country}} family of templates to make them compatible with the new scheme (I have actually been considering rolling them into the {{Category navigation}} family for a while now, so may do so at that point)

new sub-section of Commons category policies to provide guidance on how to maintain and create country-related categories going forward

Since the details of both of these are dependent on exactly what we settle on by way of consensus, I won't be expending much effort in the meantime worrying about the details of either, as that is putting the cart a good ways in front of the horse.

As for getting the framework set, I'm letting things percolate a little but will have some comments on that in the next few days. Also, once we have something we agree on, I feel strongly that we need to give a more than ample opportunity for the community at large to weigh in on this, so soliciting comments at VP and other beyond-CfD forums and allowing time for users to participate. Josh (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

States with limited recognition

I had attempted to merge Category:Categories by state with limited recognition to Category:Categories by country, since states with limited recognition are also countries and we can easily categorize them with other countries l. However, Laurel Lodged has reverted my changes, which has prompted me to start a CFD on them. However, to avoid fragmenting country category-related discussions into separate CFDs, I'm starting a sub-CFD here. This can also provide an insight on the possibilities of different Category:Categories by country by country type, including Category:Categories by sovereign state and Category:Categories by dependent territory. Pinging @Laurel Lodged: . --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. A state with limited international recognition is not always a country. Nor are all countries states. Wales is a country but not a state. The same might be said for Abkhazia, though some would say that it is just a break-away province, not even a country. Some countries have the potential to become recognised states. But we should not engage in wishful thinking on the matter nor crystal ball gazing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, per the Wikipedia article on w:International recognition of the State of Palestine, the country is now recognized by more than 145 UN members, which means the country is no longer a "state of limited recognition". So I have commented the categorization of the State of Palestine to the categories related to the Category:States with limited recognition. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That means, there will be ~~four~~ three types of Countries in Commons: Sovereign states, Dependent territories, ~~States with limited recognition~~ and Constituent countries. Similarly, there will be three types of States in Commons: Sovereign states, States with limited recognition and Constituent states. I think the types of countries and states might dictate the common definitions of both terms. In my opinion, to define certain categories that are ambiguous yet common, we should look into the possible meanings and types of those categories and define them accordingly. Disambiguating ambiguous terms is not always helpful. For instance, the term World is an ambiguous term with a lot of meanings. However, we haven't disambiguated it because the term is commonly used for stuff that are common across the Earth. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading Laurel Lodged's comment and navigating through various Wikipedia articles, Inhave realized that not all states with limited recognition are sovereign states. A state can be considered sovereign under the "declarative theory" or the "constitutive theory" of statehood. Entities like Chinland and Ambazonia are unrecognized states that don't satisfy either theories of statehood (as per reliable sources). Therefore, the new definition of the term "country" in Commons is to include sovereign states, dependent territories and constituent countries. Less-recognized states that satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory (as per reliable sources) can be included with sovereign states. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Sbb1413 Can I ask what improvement to Commons you think will be realized by doing all of this parsing of states and countries that you propose? Josh (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing these to improve Commons in the following ways:

To establish a consistent definition of certain terms that have different meanings.
To improve end users' experience on how to use categories to access the desired files.

Both countries and states are types of political entities. However, their usages are varied and quite overlapping, which cause problems to political entities like dependent territories, and subdivisions called "countries" or "states". So, I have summarized my current proposal as follows:

Countries — distinct political entities, which may or may not be independent. These include sovereign states, dependent territories, and constituent countries.
- Countries by status — to list three main types of countries, as defined above.
  - Sovereign states — political entities that satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory of statehood.
  - Dependent territories — non-sovereign possessions of sovereign states that are considered distinct from their mainlands.
  - Constituent countries — administrative units named "countries".
States — political entities that regulate society and the population within their territories. These include sovereign states, states with limited recognition, constituent states, and quasi-states.
- States by type — to list four main types of states, as defined above. It can also be used to list forms of government.
  - Sovereign states — states that satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory of statehood.
  - States with limited recognition — self-descriptive category; includes sovereign states and other self-declared independent states without widespread recognition. The ~~maximum threshold~~ criteria for inclusion is the recognition from ~~more~~ less than 50% of sovereign states. The State of Palestine is currently excluded from this category for enjoying recognition from 145 UN members, although some of the so-called "great powers" don't recognize it.
  - Constituent states — administrative units named "states".
  - Quasi-states — for self-declared independent states that don't satisfy either theories of statehood. They are excluded from the categories of countries.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the proposed definition of "limited recognition" for use in Commons. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Since there are no comments for more than two weeks, I have requested an experienced and uninvolved user to close this discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per my analysis as an involved user, I found no obvious consensus, since there are multiple proposals and counter-proposals of defining a country (including mine). The best thing would be to revert to status quo and split this discussion into multiple smaller discussions. With this, we can resolve categories like Sovereign states, Dependent territories, and Constituent countries more easily. I have drafted my proposed category scheme for world subdivisions at User:Sbb1413/Places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently noticed that en:Category:States had been deleted at the end of December 2015 for being too ambiguous. The CFD nomination states, ""State" can mean a sovereign country; or a country subdivision; or a country that belongs to an intergovernmental organization, whether it is sovereign or not; and several other things. It's not a useful term to categorize by because it is ambiguous; the category page should be a category disambiguation page." So I think we can do away with States and categorize most types of states under Countries by status or Countries by type. I have added the alternative proposal at User:Sbb1413/Places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons categories were a lot less developed in 2015. That may have been the right call for how it was used at that time, but you have proposed a structure that seems to make is less ambiguous and at least worthy of discussion. I do think that at some point zooming out both 'countries' and 'states' to such a macro-level, I wonder if they kind of cross-meld at that point, but we can discuss that in detail in your subsequent discussions. Josh (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I must have missed the notification on this one since my last comment, so my apologies for not responding to your latest outline. I think you might have a good idea with closing this one as no consensus, but then opening some more focused ones under the appropriate higher-level categories. This is a very major change in structure for us, so I do not think we should be rushing to action, but it would certainly be nice to reach at least some points that we can put to work on improving things.

Comment I actually revisited this discussion as a result of participating in the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Georgia as I was wondering if maybe we should be concerned with a change in the meaning of "country" (within Commons category names) being adopted, and if that could impact that discussion. I'm guessing that isn't occurring in the short term at least, so I won't worry about raising the point there, but it just another indicator of the far-reaching consequences of a change like this (not itself a reason to not do it, just to keep in mind). Josh (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The usual meaning of countries has been sovereign states, regardless of the dispute on the definition. The ~~Republic~~ country of Georgia ~~(using full name to avoid ambiguity)~~ is indeed a sovereign state and a country, as confirmed by multiple sources. And you're right, we should move away from this centralized discussion and focus on individual (potential) subcategories instead. For now, the Countries category can be defined as merely a type of distinct political entity without going into the specifics. While sovereign states are always countries, we have to discuss whether other types of states and territories can be considered as countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly offtopic, but I've noticed an interesting thing in Wikidata. In the Query Builder, I found that no item has used England as the country, and only the Wikidata item of Markland (Scots) is using Scotland as the country. On the other hand, I found numerous items using Wales and Northern Ireland as countries. This means that there are valid reasons to consider the constituent countries as countries. However, as said numerous times before, countries generally refer to sovereign states, and other meanings can be covered on a case-by-case basis. So even if this discussion is closed as no consensus, we will continue discussing the individual types of countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I am in agreement that perhaps it is best if we leave countries essentially as is, including all sovereign states but also open to other 'countries'. Specific cases can be discussed as needed. Josh (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since my request for closure is archived without response, we should wait if other involved users agree to close this category and open CFDs for the following cases:

States (including sovereign states and limited recognition states)
Dependent territories
Constituent countries

Until the CFDs are resolved, I will provide a temporary, vague description for the Countries category. Once the CFDs are resolved, I will change the description according to the prevailing consensus. I bet most sovereign states (including India and the US) won't be affected by our actions with these categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for closure

@Sbb1413, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, and The Eloquent Peasant:

I think we are all pretty much orbiting around the same basic concepts here, so perhaps we can proceed with closure of this CfDs with a pretty simple consensus, while more specific issues can be taken up in more focused discussions.

Essentially, Category:Countries can remain the home for sovereign states, and can also include other entities that are considered countries. Specific entities whose consideration as countries is controversial can be discussed individually in specific CfDs. I'm hopeful that we can adopt these basic tenets out of this discussion:

The scope of Category:Countries is slightly relaxed to include all sovereign states, as well as permitting other entities considered countries.
Sub-categories of Countries can be created for diffusion by type of country as per the normal Commons category policies for sub-category creation.
An index of Countries by name should be maintained for users to find countries without prejudice to any diffusion, simply listed by name.
Indices of topics by country (e.g. Category:Science by country) can include contents where the 'country' is any entity which would be categorized in the Category:Countries tree. Essentially, anything a user is reasonably likely to seek under a 'by country' index should be permitted there. Rarely will there be a need to diffuse this index (akin to Category:Science by constituent country or something), so all countries, regardless of type can live here if they have a category on the topic.
COM:OVERCAT rules can be relaxed for index categories. This should be applied to 'by country' indices as well, thus permitting parent and child entities, should both be countries in their own way, to both be listed in the same index without requiring OVERCAT resolution. This should prevent arguments over which level of country is the right one to include in an index.
For topics specific to a particular international organization or order, use that organization's official rules for which countries are included in that organization's topics.
Templates, where possible, should be adapted to permit this broader range of countries in their processes. Naturally templates may not always be up to date or technically able to cover all cases, so additional manual categorization may be required in some cases.
Navigation boxes, due to technical limitations on expensive parser functions and the need to be compact and useful for the given topic, can exercise editorial judgement over what countries are or are not included in a given list. Such a decision is no indication of whether an entity is or is not a country and whether or not it should be included in Category:Countries or in 'by country' indices. Discussions on inclusion in a given list should take place on a given template's talk page.

Applying this to the OP category, Category:Wales:

Category:Wales can be considered a country, and can therefore be categorized under Category:Countries.
Category:Wales may be appropriately diffused into sub-category Category:Constituent countries and so forth within the Category:Countries tree, in accordance with Commons category policies
Category:Wales should be added to Category:Countries by name. This index should not be diffused.
Topics of Wales, such as Category:Science in Wales should be included in the science index at Category:Science by country
With relaxation of COM:OVERCAT, Science in Wales and Science in the United Kingdom can both live together under Science by country.
As Wales participates as a country in things like association football, its association football categories should be treated as a country within that topic.
{{Country label}} should identify Wales as a constituent country and templates should, to the best of their ability, support the above organizations in country.
Wales can be included in navigation by country boxes, particularly those for Europe or specific organizations Wales is part of. There may be cases where Wales is not included due to technical limitations, but this should not be interpreted as a claim upon Wales' status one way or the other.

In any case, none of these tenets should be considered written in stone for ever more, but merely an adjustment for now that can be further refined by future discussion. In a lot of cases, specific examples will require further discussion, and participants should feel free these guidelines as best serves the specific cases. Future discussions should be able to build upon, not feel constrained by, these guidelines. Adopting these basics would be good forward progress, but would not require a wholesale reconstruction of the whole countries tree, so the be benefit-to-disruption ratio is pretty favorable. Josh (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This flexibility would solve a lot of issues. Still two questions:

What is an "OP category"?
I guess there are a lot of changes needed in categories, templates and navigation boxes. How will that be implemented?

JopkeB (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB, my apologies, I used "OP" as short-hand for original post, i.e. referring to the category originally referenced at the start of the discussion.

As for the changes, my thought is that since this is basically just a relaxation of the scope, no hard and fast changes are immediately required, but some of the entities that will now be permitted can now migrate as folks feel it makes sense. For some, that had already been done to one degree or another, hence prompting this CfD in the first place, and that can now continue. As for templates, they can be updated over time to support the broader scope, but in the meantime, categories can be added manually. For templates I work on, if I see manual categories in addition being used, I often look to work them into the template somehow, but there can be technical limits that make leaving it to manual categories in some cases the better option. As for navboxes, there is no requirement that they immediately accommodate additional 'countries', as they do have some reasons to be selective in their scope. As we notice useful additions, they can be added to the navboxes, though this may warrant some discussion on any given box if it creates technical issues. Again, this is not a rush need, but can be done over time as we see the need. Josh (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Joshbaumgartner: for the answer. This makes sense. --JopkeB (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am Oppose most of the items of this proposal, and I think they don't reflect the consensus of this discussion. Specifically:
1. The scope of Category:Countries should not be extended to every possible entity considered or called a country. Otherwise there will be no end to that (welcome Basque Country, Black Country, West Country, Wine Country etc.)

4 & 5. COM:OVERCAT, when applied to categories of Topics by country, should be relaxed strictly to allow room for dependent territories significantly separated from their mainland, largely unrecognized countries and former countries, but NOT sub-national entities.

More generally, the notion of constituent country covers vastly different realities when applied to either Denmark and Netherlands (which in fact have entities with a status more akin to that of dependent territories such as the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, or Overseas France) and the four home nations of the UK, which all 4 have themselves very different statuses (e.g. Northern Ireland is commonly called a province, not a country). Place Clichy 17:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My counterarguments:

Why do we want to extend the definition of countries to include every single entity called a country? Mainly entities that are commonly considered a country in international/global discourse should be included. This includes sovereign states, dependent territories and constituent countries.
You may be right on which territory may we consider as a dependent territory. However, the SARs of China (Hong Kong and Macau) are adjacent to the mainland, yet they are commonly considered as dependent territories and hence countries.

I'm not talking about the constituent countries of the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands right now, since you may consider them as similar to the dependent territories. However, the UK home nations, despite having very different statuses, participate in international sports as separate countries. Even the so-called "province" of Northern Ireland participates in FIFA and Euro separately. Northern Ireland is commonly called a "province" because it covers six of the nine counties of the historical Irish province of Ulster. Similarly, Wales is commonly called a "principality" because it was once ruled by the Prince of Wales when Wales was a separate realm. It doesn't mean that they are not UK countries. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are all countries of the UK. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I understand the issues posed by the present-day architecture of the Commons category system, as well as the difficulties derived from a nominal approach (entities named "country"). I also appreciate the spirit and flexibility of the proposal to reach a consensus, but I cannot agree with the semantic assimilation by nation states of the terms "nation", "country" and "sovereign states", least of all that the Basque Country be left out, a historic nation. (May I add that despite their formal coincidence, "Wine Country" (etc.) and "Basque Country", to cite two, have nothing to do in semantic terms) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players of North Carolina Tar Heels women's soccer

Request move to Category:North Carolina Tar Heels women's soccer players for consistency with other members of Category:College women's soccer players. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom, plus the wording of the current cat is awkward. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though I should add that the this move would undo the move made by Blackcat in in 2016 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a couple of other similar ones in there:

Support rename to "Team Name women's soccer players" for all contents of Category:College women's soccer players for now. Josh (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole of Category:College women's soccer players and its subs may require rename to Category:NCAA women's association football players to match parent Category:NCAA association football players at somepoint, but the rename above shouldn't need to wait on that. Josh (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The sport is "association football", not soccer, and the scheme is "Players of XXXXXX", which is the one widely used on commons. Is the whole category: "Category:College women's soccer players" which has no reason to exist; the main category is "Women's association football players by club in the United States" and that's enough, why the univeristy soccer should have a separate name scheme? -- Blackcat —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: And on the other hand, the Category:College athletes in the United States tree (complementing Category:College sports teams in the United States) is surely category-worthy, and its subcategories should be formatted consistently, from Category:Alabama Crimson Tide football players to Category:UCLA Bruins basketball players. This format is also the more idiomatic in American English – maybe hold off from doing related page moves during the discussion. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "more idiomatic in American English" mean? I thought Commons were written in English, not in the English spoken overseas. We cannot write "football" and let the reader guess which football code we are talking about, don't you agree? -- Blackcat 20:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't mean to touch the "football" vs. "soccer" debate! Only said American because I noticed, when looking at related categories, that many US ones use the "X players" format (e.g., Category:National Basketball Association players by club) which I find more natural-sounding (more idiomatic) than "Players of X" (e.g., Category:Basketball players by team in Italy). (There is also the ubiquitous issue, with "Players of X" cats, of a missing "the" – e.g., Category:Players of Portugal women's national association football team instead of Category:Players of the Portugal women's national association football team or Category:Players of North Carolina Courage instead of Category:Players of the North Carolina Courage.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linha do Elétrico de Sintra

Como é que esta categoria se conjuga com Category:Trams in Sintra e Category:Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra? Mete-se aqui tudo? Não entendo. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parece-me que a "Linha do Elétrico de Sintra" é uma parte de "Trams in Sintra" e de "Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra", que são categorias mais genéricas. Pode haver mais "Trams in Sintra" e mais "Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra", que desconheço, mas pode haver mais. Daí, havendo essa linha específica, assim designada no SIPA e na outra bd da DGPC, estando classificada como Monumento de Interesse Municipal, pareceu-me bem criá-la como sub-categoria de "Tram transport infrastructure in Sintra". GualdimG (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realmente há um elétrico da Carris q esteve uns anos a servir de anexo numa instalação pré-escolar no Cacém, e q portanto, sendo em Sintra, nada tem a ver com a C.S.A. Casos menos claros serão os outros ex-CCFL (e um ex-SMTUC, pelo menos) que estão ou estiveram nas cocheiras da C.S.A.: Uns só de passagem, mais ou menos prolongada, outros que acabaram por ser adaptados para integrar a frota da C.S.A.

Mesmo assim não me agrada este nome de categoria. O facto de ser a designação adotada para a classificação monumental não me convence, também: Há nomes no SIPA que, por muito oficiais que sejam, são simplemente absurdos (ex.) — não ficaria melhor a designação "Companhia Sintra-Atlântico"?, que desde a década de 1940 não se refere a uma empresa, sendo apenas uma “marca” usada pelo proprietário (atualmente, a C.M.S).

O que é realmente esta categoria, ao refletir o nome da classificação como MIM? O que entra nesta categoria, já que, como bem dito acima, as outras categorias são mais genéricas? Umas fotos avulsas como está agora? Todas ao molho? Nenhuma foto? Apenas subcats que são 100% C.S.A. como esta ou esta? (Já lá está esta, afinal…) E a sua própria categorização? Talvez mover para aqui qs tudo o q está em Category:Tram transport in Sintra?

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concordo que existem nomes oficiais menos adequados (menos no SIPA do que na outra base de dados da DGPC), mas não neste caso. Parece-me "Linha do Elétrico de Sintra" perfeitamente adequada para o "assunto". O facto de ser menos genérica do que as outras duas não é óbice à sua manutenção. Talvez seja antes de equacionar a manutenção das duas mais genéricas em conjunto. GualdimG (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sporting shops

Along with Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport, Category:Sports equipment retail companies and Category:Sporting shops by country. Josh (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original post from COM:VP: "Sporting goods"

In terms of shops, I think we have a bit of a conflation in the hierarchy between at least two distinct types of shops. As you go up and down the hierarchy, "sports shops" "sporting shops", and "sporting goods shops" appear in category names. In the U.S., and especially before 1970 or so, "sporting goods" mostly means/meant hunting and fishing, maybe camping, not a lot that would be called "sports" nowadays (though they did usually carry some baseball gloves, etc.). On the whole the were more like what is now called an "outdoor equipment" shop, a term we don't seem at all to have in our categories.

This came up because I needed to categorize File:Seattle - Warshal's Sporting Goods, circa 1970s (52899606237).jpg. I ended up using Category:Sporting shops in the United States, but it puts it in a category with things like an Adidas shop, or the team store of a minor league baseball team.

Anyone interested in sorting this out? I could start a CfD, but a lot of categories are potentially affected, and I have no particular expertise or focus in the area.

Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and Jmabel (talk · contribs) is right, this section needs help. There are a lot of categories affected, and so it bears discussion. The current path looks like this:

Category:Sports equipment retail companies
- Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport
  - Category:Sporting shops
    - Category:Sporting shops by country
      - Category:Sporting shops in the United States

A few things came up when looking into it:

Category:Shops is the intersection of Category:Retail buildings and Category:Retail companies, indicating that 'shop' on Commons is the physical location of a retail company's operation (i.e. brick-and-mortar store).
Category:Sports equipment is the Commons topic for all goods associated with sports. Category:Sporting goods doesn't exist, and presumably if it did, it should be a redirect to Category:Sports equipment.
Placing Category:Sporting shops under Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport makes little sense, as I'm not sure how "sporting" is a sport (thought maybe "shops" could be?).
Several categories use "retailers" instead of "shops", such as Category:Golf retailers and the like.

Thus I would start with the following changes:

Keep Category:Sports equipment retail companies at the top as is for all companies involved in selling sports equipment/sporting goods.
Rename Category:Sporting shops to Category:Sports equipment shops . This obeys the Hierarchic Principle by being consistent with parent topics Sports equipment and Shops. Move this category out of Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport and place directly under Category:Sports equipment retail companies. Apply this name change down through the sub-categories such as 'by country', 'in the United States', etc.
Rename Category:Sporting goods retailers by sport to Category:Sports equipment retail companies by sport , and possible create a Category:Sports equipment shops by sport to go under Category:Sports equipment shops if there is a need.
Rename "X retailers" categories to either "X equipment retail companies" or "X equipment shops", depending on which is appropriate for content of the given company.
Some of the content under categories such as Category:Sporting shops in the United States is really higher-level retail companies, not the actual shops.

These changes would result in the following structure:

Category:Sports equipment retail companies

The primary benefits of this would be consistent hierarchy (Hierarchic Principle) and naming (Universality Principle), with a structure that clearly delineates between 'shops' as the specific physical retail buildings of companies and 'retail companies' which include but go beyond the shops themselves to include all facets of a retail business. I know this is a big chunk to re-structure and it can't really be done in one fell swoop, but I think we should at least set something like this up as the target so it can be transitioned to this structure and new content can be added to this model instead of merely expanding the existing mess. Josh (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to another part of Jmabel (talk · contribs)'s post, discussing the distinction between different eras of "sporting goods": Currently, Category:Outdoor gear and Category:Hunting equipment are categorized under Category:Sports equipment so I think it would easily fit into the hierarchy I described above. Thus whether we are talking old or new connotations of "sporting goods", I think outdoor gear and/or hunting equipment shops fit just fine under sports equipment shops. Josh (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I think that works. Recreational fishing equipment belongs in there as well as hunting. Heavy overlap, but there are plenty of fishing equipment shops that don't carry guns or bows. Also -- I didn't look into this -- hunting-oriented shops must significantly intersect gun shops, but there are definitely gun shops that aren't particularly about hunting. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs

There are several issues with this category, including scope, categorization, and name to start with. Josh (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name is unclear. Is it photographs from this office, or actually photographs of the office? It appears to be the former, so should be named in the format "Category:Photographs from the Office of the President of Taiwan"
It is only categorized as a topical category under Category:Officials of the Government-General of Taiwan but this is probably not good. If the images are just from the president's office, they are not necessarily images of officials, though most probably are. Nonetheless, this does not appear to be a topical category, but instead a media source category, so should be in the Category:Images by source tree instead.
Images here are mostly not included in any other topical categories. This makes them all but unfindable by any user that does not specifically narrow their search to images specifically sourced from the president's office.

It appears that this category was created in an attempt to fix the fact that these images were listed under Media needing categories by giving them a category. However, giving them a nonsense category to be hidden in is not a real fix. They need to be given comprehensive real categorization by topic before they are removed from Media needing categories. I propose the following:

Restore the images in Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs to their correct place in Category:Media needing categories. From there they can be correctly sorted into proper topical categories so they are useful to the project.
Any images in both Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs and Category:Images from the Office of the President of the Republic of China Flickr stream be removed from Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs.

Merge Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs into Category:Images by the Office of the President of the Republic of China (Taiwan).

Delete Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs

@Photo Archives, Jmabel, Herbert Ortner, and RZuo: pinging participants from VP conversation. Josh (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A pseudo-topical category that is a source category in disguise is a sheer liability. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HI, I was using Google Translate and saw that there were images in dozens of areas that the President and Vice-president were attending functions. It would have taken so long to make individual Cat's as I don't speak or read Chinese so I put them in the most logical and relavent Category i could think of. But as there is a similar Cat go ahead and make the transfer and appropriate deletion. I vote for the change. Photo Archives (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm moving them to meaningful topical cats directly. this needs a few weeks. RZuo (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i finished removing all taiwanese files. RZuo (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway signalling wires

see also existing discussion on Category talk:Railway signalling wires

	Category:Railway signalling wires	Move to/Rename as	Category:Railway signal wires
	per move request by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs): "Revert undiscussed and inappropriate bulk rename of this and the children. It was better before."

@Andy Dingley and Radiojunkie: : It would be great if there were some references to point to on what industry naming standards are for this sort of thing. Josh (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question are these wires intended to include electrical wires for signal transmission, physical control cables, or both? Josh (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I would say definitely not (the mechanical wires to control signals are a justified category of their own), and that's why we should avoid a name that potentially confuses those others into this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, Andy Dingley, and Radiojunkie: So far, according to the images included, I have the impression that there were no bigger problems with understanding the purpose and definition of the category, and the category is only used for physical-control pull cables, as it was meant. However, it is true that the English name is inaccurate and misleading. The only linked article is cs:Drátovod, whose name is utterly unambiguous (= "a device that conducts wires", "conduit of wires") and this Czech name covers both the signaling and the control function (in German: Drahtzugleitung). Unfortunately, I can no longer remember where I got the chosen English name 12 years ago (probably from some related texts in English Wikipedia). I agree that colleagues who know the technical English should look for a more appropriate and documentable technical term in English, if there exists one for this matter. Google translator offers "wire pull line", but Google images diplay quite different things under this name. Unfortunately, we have very few images from Anglophone countries that are named by expert native speakers. The article en:Railway semaphore signal#Operation uses no special terms for those control wires, or uses unspecific words "signal wires". The article en:Boom barrier is very short and doesn't mention the distant mechanical control, as well as en:Railroad switch doesn't mention that. --ŠJů (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertebrata (female)

Category:Vertebrata (female)	Move to/Rename as	Category:Female vertebrata
fix incorrect use of dab section (vertebrata are not a subset of female).
Josh (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wayside shrines in Japan

神社、寺院、モニュメント・記念建造物、塑像などと同じように、ja:Category:路傍の神仏にカテゴライズされるお地蔵さん、祠、道祖神‎などを県別カテゴリにできないだろうかと考えています。対象は、宗教と明確に結び付けられる像または祠・お堂で、道路沿いに位置するあるいは街・野山に神社・寺院から独立して存在するものとなります。ただし、どの程度の大きさの祠・お堂を対象とするのかなど、正確な定義が難しいところもあります。

なお、ウィキメディア外のプロジェクト用に奈良市・京都市で作成されたCategory:Wayside Place of Worship in Nara, Category:Wayside Place of Worship in Kyotoというものがあります。これは特定の目的用としてそのまま（隠しカテゴリ化して）据え置くのが適当ではないかと思います。

以下を原案に提示します。階層構造で、"~~ in Japan by prefecture‎"はその下位に県別カテゴリを置きます。リンクなしが新規作成です。

Category:Wayside shrines in Japan
- Wayside Buddhist statues in Japan（Category:Nobotokeを移動） - 地蔵以外の阿弥陀像、観音像などの仏教関係の像。路傍のもの。
  - Wayside Buddhist statues in Japan by prefecture‎
  - Category:Jizō‎ - 地蔵。
    - （Category:Jizō in Japan by prefecture‎）
- Wayside Buddhist temples in Japan - 仏教関係のお堂。路傍の小規模のもの。
  - Wayside Buddhist temples in Japan by prefecture‎
- Wayside Shinto shrines in Japan（Category:Hokoraを移動またはそのまま使用?） - 神道系の祠・小祠・小堂。路傍の小規模のもの。
  - Wayside Shinto shrines in Japan by prefecture‎（またはHokora by prefecture?）
- Wayside shrines in Japan by prefecture‎ - 下位にWayside Buddhist statues in Japan by prefecture‎, Wayside Buddhist temples in Japan, Wayside Shinto shrines in Japan。仏教系・神道系どちらでもない祠・お堂はこちらに分類。

ただし、分類にあたりいくつかの不明点があります。

例えば庚申塔(Category:Kōshin-tō)は道教に由来し、神仏習合さらに民間信仰も融合したもののようですが、これはどの宗教と分類しがたい。このようなものがほかにもありそうだと思います。
カテゴリ名Wayside "shrines"だと建物（屋根）を有するものが対象になるため、Wayside Buddhist statuesはWayside shrinesの下位にはするべきではないかもしれません。ja:Category:路傍の神仏に相当する包括的カテゴリがあればいいなと考えていますので、"Wayside shrines in Japan"ではなく別のカテゴリ名にしたほうがよいかもしれません。
どの程度の大きさの祠・お堂を対象とするのか議論の余地があると思います。ただ、拝殿と本殿をもつような、人が中に入れるような神社・寺院と、路傍の人が入れないようなものもある祠・お堂が別のものとして認識されるのは一般的であり、カテゴリを分けたいと考えています。

私自身この分野に決して詳しいとは言えないため、みなさまの意見を頂戴しながら、ゆっくりと議論を重ねていければと思います。--Peka (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]