This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced admins. (recount)

In other languages

العربية ∙ Boarisch ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ ślůnski ∙ தமிழ் ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

Header 1

Category:Touchless hand-washing sink

Why is the name of this not plural? Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Touchless hand-washing sinks as it doesn't appear to be for a single one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Header 1

Category:Monuments and memorials referencing years

There's no Category:Referencing. Nor does this whole "referencing by year" thing seem to exist outside of monuments and memorials. Plus a lot of these sub-categories are extremely under populated to begin with. Not to mention it isn't even clear what the difference between this and Category:Monuments and memorials by year is either. So I'm wondering if these whole category scheme should just be deleted. As I really don't see the point in it and there's no higher level category scheme to justify the thing anyways. Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole (quite extensive) tree in the subcat Category:Plaques referencing years. That category has existed here since 2007, so I suppose that this kind of categorisation is rather consensual. I developed the "Monuments" supercategory to cover items that aren't plaques – and these are common, though it only covers a small subset of related files. A better attitude would be to expand the category tree, not delete it :) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plaques referencing years is a child category of this one and from what I can tell most of them only contain a few categories or images. So I'd hardly call them "extensive." I don't really see how that's an argument for or against keeping this anyway. And it's nothing to do with my "attitude." I've pointed out several reasons why this category structure is an issue and makes absolutely no sense. Just because someone created something in 2007 isn't a reason to keep doing categorizing things that way years later either. Again, especially considering the issues which you seem to be ignoring. I'm kind of interested in what you think the difference is between "Category:Monuments and memorials referencing years and Category:Monuments and memorials by year is though since your the one advocating for keeping the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we have the year a monument was a created and the year of the event being commemorated, which one goes where?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only one of those two that matters is the year of creation. Otherwise there's already categories for monuments and memorials having to do with specific events like WW1. Do we really need Category:Monuments and memorials of World War I referencing 1916? Probably not. Category:Monuments and memorials of World War I is perfectly fine. In the meantime from what I can tell most, or all, of the images and child categories here are for gravestones or memorials having to do with people. So what's being referenced is their year of birth and/death. Which is already covered by other categories. Either that or it's the date for something like a bridge, where the year being refenced is the date of complication and again, that's already covered by Category:Bridges by year of completion. So at least IMO having a specific category system for year of the event being commemorated is totally pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags with more than twenty stars

Seems pretty arbitrary and there are many more useful subcategories for direct categorization at Category:Flags by number of stars. I propose getting rid of this category and upmerging as necessary (many of these subcategories and files are already in appropriate and more useful categories). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a parent category by range of values would be helpful. Some people just count 1,2,3,4,5,6,many.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really the problem with this category. Josh (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes on quantity categories:

Quantity categories, based on the quantity of a depicted subject, should be by exact counted quantity (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 987, etc.). (see Category:Groups)
Ranges of quantity (1-5, 10-19, etc.) should be avoided as they are always arbitrary and can lead to unneeded layers of quantity structure.
Quantities should be represented by numerals, not words, in category names (e.g. "1", not "one").
Quantity categories should be indexed in the relevant topic by quantity index (in this case at Category:Flags by number of stars exists for this purpose).
Quantity categories should use a standard numeric sort key (see and use {{Numsort}} if needed).
"Many" categories are not based on quantity, but instead should be used for images which depict a significant quantity of the subject, but in which the subjects are not individually distinct enough to be reasonably countable. If the individual subjects are countable, exact quantity should be used instead of "Many". e.g. crowd of mingling people vs. group portrait. I'm not aware of any flags which depict stars in an uncountable fashion.

In conclusion,

Delete Category:Flags with more than twenty stars and upmerge contents into Category:Flags with stars. From there, sort contents into appropriate specific quantity categories if applicable. Josh (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wooden statues by Donatello in Italy

cascade of c: without items. Wooden sculptures by D. would suffice (If in the future a not-statue would be discovered in Not-Italy we would survive.)) MenkinAlRire (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no we need this cat, and I do not see a "cascade without items“--Oursana (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this c: is a subc: to Wooden statues by Donatello (empty) which is a subc to Wooden sculptures by Donatello (empty). That all sculptures are in Italy is expressed in the c:15th-ct wooden sculptures in Italy. A c: that only has another c: in it that has a c: in... is nonsense, like the Matryoshka dolls, and here it would be a bureaucratic principle ruling over common sense, and that may lead to kafkaesk structures. I don't think anyone wants this sort of tricky over-categorisations, where noone actually finds anything anymore, without keeping up with empty shells.

There are no wooden sculptures by Donatello outside Italy and it is not likely that there will be. All wooden sculptures are statues, so what? You could certainly remove both c:s above, instead of both subc:s.

You have to consider all the ways users will approach this, not only the logic in the creation of c:s. I often go with the c:artist and search from there. Donatello's c-tree is not that complicated, but already complicated enough (e.g. attributed works are a problem). If you only see a list of categories it is already abstract enough and you have to really know what you are searching for, because objects have often many names, some appear in a different language and so on. To come to this sort of stapled empty categories, as a user I feel like someone's pulling my leg, I feel fucked, really (it might just be the top of the frustration, I already have getting through this jungle).

At last, the differentiation of sculptures equally only makes sense, when there are also wooden reliefs or some distinguished busts, but there are none, and if a single wooden bust would be attr. to Donatello, the bust could have its specific subc:, without having the statues compromised. We don't need to make things more complicated as they show themselves. Sorry, this was a categorical speech (pun intended). MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I see here,

This is the only sub of Category:Wooden statues by Donatello, especially by location. Categorization by location is fine if there are multiple locations to diffuse, but here there is not, so it serves not purpose under this parent, and all subjects of this category can be moved up to this parent.
This is the only sub of Category:15th-century wooden statues in Italy by creator. Categorization by artist is fine if there are multiples artists to diffuse. We can simply place Category:Wooden statues by Donatello under 15th-century wooden statues in Italy, as all of the contents of the former that we have are also of the latter. This would serve the same diffusing effect on this category while eliminating an extra click level.
This is one of two subs of Category:Statues by Donatello in Italy by material. In this case it makes sense to diffuse his wooden statues from the marble ones, but as with #2 above, this can be accomplished simply by placing Category:Wooden statues by Donatello directly here, since all of the wooden statues of his that we have here are in Italy.

Thus, Merge Category:Wooden statues by Donatello in Italy into Category:Wooden statues by Donatello and place the target category under Category:15th-century wooden statues in Italy and Category:Statues by Donatello in Italy.

@Oursana: , is there a particular reason why this would not work? Josh (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodoxy

I doubt the usefulness of this category. It seems to simply embrace religions that call themselves "orthodox", but I see no reason to believe that having "orthodox" in the name of your religion means anything much about whether or not you adhere to your beliefs (the meaning of the linked Wikidata item). Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Maybe we should change the scope of this category to cover other denominations or religious communities considered orthodox. For instance, Category:Sunni Islam is considered "orthodox Islam", as it adheres to correct or accepted beliefs related to Islam. Similarly, Category:Theravada is considered the orthodox school of Buddhism, Category:Sanatana Dharma the orthodox version of Hinduism, and so on (by the way, "sanātana", literally "ageless", is often used to mean "orthodox" in many Indo-Aryan languages). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: Certainly a step better, but I'm not sure I like the implication that (for example) Roman Catholicism or Shia Islam are heterodox, or that everything within a capital-O "Orthodox" Church is necessarily "orthodox." E.g. the Old Believers and the mainline Russian Orthodox each consider the other heterodox. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-purpose as a disambig page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Agreed. "Orthodoxy" is a concept that perhaps can be depicted somehow, but current contents appear to be Category:Religions named after orthodoxy, so I think it can be deleted or perhaps dabbed as Laurel_Lodged suggests. Josh (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine 2021 - Quantity

Anyone know what the word "quantity" is referring to here and/or what the purpose of it is? If not everything in this category should probably just be up-merged. Adamant1 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: it's a technical category for Wiki Loves Monuments organizers that denotes one of the nominations of the contest ("quantity" is the name of the nomination – it refers to awarding for the number of monuments pictured in the contest). The category serves a useful purpose and should be kept as is. AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonProtsiuk (WMUA): Is there not a better way to keep track of it or at least a less ambiguous name for the category? At least from what I've seen from past CfDs and personal experience there's no consensus to have these types of personal, arbitrary maintenance categories. Especially in cases where the name of the category is so ambiguous that only the user who created it knows what it's for. Maybe something like "Wiki Loves Monuments maintenance category X" would work better. This seems like a normal category for images of monuments in Ukraine when that's not what it is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be one of two domains in the WLMUK contests uploaders have to choose when participating. This category (or the other) then gets added by the upload wizard.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: Yeah, I don't know. These personal maintenance categories are less then ideal. If there can't be similar maintenance categories for Wikiproject Postcards then I don't see why anyone else should be able to have them. Either personal maintenance categories are acceptable or they aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: I'd appreciate it if you left it open for now so other people can comment if they want to. Closing a CfD after a single day and two comments isn't great. Thinks. I still think the categories should be renamed to something clearer even if their kept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to hinder your retirement. All the best! And no, there wont be a subcategory "not a postcard".
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has anything to do with this, but I'm probably just going to cut back on this and work on other things. There's some stuff I'm in the middle of that I want to get done before stopping completely though. And I don't remember saying anywhere that there should be a "not a postcard" subcategory. So I have no clue what your talking about there or how it's relevant. Maybe stick to the topic if your going to comment though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up postcards and announced your retirement. Thus the closure. The only postcard category of your I recall was called "not a postcard" (or similar), thus the mention. But apparently you say things that aren't necessarily relevant and we are supposed to guess if and how it is. In any case, happy retirement. All the best.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't bring up retiring in this discussion, you did. I didn't know that just because someone was retiring that every discussion they had anything to do with before then was suddenly null and void either. That said I'm more then happy to retract this if your that triggered by it. Some people go into rages about some odd things on here, but whatever. I don't want you to be upset over the mere existence of a CfD. So I'm totally willing to just call this good if we want. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 This is admittedly a poor naming structure (not just this category, but several in that tree), but the standards are much more lax for maintenance and special project categories not listed in the main topical category tree. Are you suggesting that we should impose stricter standards on such categories in general, or now that at least a purpose has been identified for this one, are you okay with leaving it to the WLM participants to manage this? Josh (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Negative

contains cats like "Criticism‎" and "Ends‎"; not useful but problematic, needs to get scope specified/changed Prototyperspective (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I think this category is for negative aspects of something, like Category:Criticism, Category:Ends, Category:Restrictions‎, Category:Negative numbers‎, etc. Category:Criticism often covers negative aspects of a given topic; Category:Ends is considered negative, as opposed to Category:Beginnings; Category:Restrictions is also considered negative, as opposed to Category:Liberty; and Category:Negative numbers are obviously negative. See also: Category:Positive. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see the nomination rationale. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean on the side of purging this category and replacing it with a disambiguation page. The current contents fall into two groups:

Things which are described using the English word "negative": photographic negatives, negative numbers, negative space. There's no actual relation between these things, just a coincidence of language.
Things which have negative connotations: criticism, asymmetry, restrictions. This is subjective and should not be used as the basis for a category.

Omphalographer (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective and Omphalographer: I have also tagged Category:Positive for the same reason. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that one's even more of a grab bag than "negative". Category:Positive organs is a particularly strange example; it means "a small, portable pipe organ that you sit down to play" and is completely unrelated to the concept of positivity. Support purging/disambiguating that one as well. Omphalographer (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what you said in your two comments. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Category:Negative and Category:Positive should be dabbed with contents to include both categories with 'negative' or 'positive' in their name as well as concepts that may be considered 'negative' or 'positive'. This way people can still navigate through these to whatever it is they are looking for, but they should not be categories for dumping all manner of subjective contents. Josh (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass grave Frontovoe

пустая без возможного наполнения. Надо удалить kosun (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indoor cycling

They arent all indoors. Perhaps it should be called Spinning (bicycle) Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest it's kept and that instead your suggested category is added as a parent cat to it and all files which aren't indoors removed from this cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this case, it is rather confusing, but "indoor cycling" is the name of the activity, not merely a descriptive phrase meaning 'doing cycling while indoors'. I don't think riding a bike around inside a building would constitute the activity of "indoor cycling", while one could do "indoor cycling" while not actually inside of a building. Kind of like playing field hockey somewhere other than a field? I don't think there is enough here to warrant sub-categorization of this by whether it being done actually indoors or out (though if we had a lot of images of both conditions, it might be valid at that point).

@Rathfelder is right to suggest maybe using another name for this activity that doesn't breed such predictable confusion, but I have no idea if "spinning" is a more widely used term than "indoor cycling". If it is not broadly recognized as specifically meaning the same activity, the confusion issue alone isn't enough to adopt a niche alternative term. Josh (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural heritage monuments

There seems to be a couple of issues with this category, and not that I know what to do about them, but I feel like they at least need to be discussed and/or clarified.

1. This is in Category:Monuments and memorials by subject, which happens to be a child of Category:Art by subject. Although a lot of "cultural heritage monuments" aren't art.

2. Per the description of Category:Monuments and memorials "imposing structure created to commemorate a person or event, or used for that purpose." Then just to go along with that the definition of a monument on Google is "a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." Although it also gives the definition of "a building, structure, or site that is of historical importance or interest." But it's pretty clear that by "monument" Commons is refer to the former, not the later. I. E. "structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." The problem is that a lot of things in this category weren't created commemorate a person or event and categories are only suppose to be about a single subject and not be ambiguous in the meantime. So it seems wrong to have categories for "monuments", where said "monuments" don't actually fit the definition of the term for similar categories.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1:

Move Category:Monuments and memorials by subject from Category:Art by subject to Category:Architecture by subject, as we don't have Category:Structures by subject. Almost everything in Category:Cultural heritage monuments are works of art, as "works of art" are not just paintings, creative photos, and sculptures. There are architecturally significant buildings, which can be considered as "works of art".
Support As you've pointed out, the term "monument" has two primary definitions; Category:Monuments and memorials uses the former definition, and Category:Cultural heritage monuments and Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) use the latter. However, as per the Selectivity Principle, "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." So, we should restrict Category:Monuments and memorials for structures to commemorate people or events (maybe rename to simply Category:Memorials, thus getting rid of the ambiguous term "monuments"). Therefore, Category:Cultural heritage monuments should be renamed to Category:Heritage structures, and the Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) programme should replace "Monuments" with something else (maybe "Heritage", as it often focus on heritage structures). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article monument says, "A monument is a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event, or which has become relevant to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, due to its artistic, historical, political, technical or architectural importance. Examples of monuments include statues, (war) memorials, historical buildings, archaeological sites, and cultural assets." Even this article covers two different definitions, for which we should have separate categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: On the first thing, my main issue is with buildings that get designed as "Cultural heritage monuments" after the fact. I don't think this building is art just because the Ukraine government decided that it has historical importance. Although of course some architecture can be art, but everything in a sub-category of Category:Art has to be. You can't have a sub-category of Category:Art where only 1 out of 10 images or whatever are actually of art or artistic architecture.

Your suggestion to rename things sounds reasonable. "Wiki Loves Monuments" always sounded a little wrong to me anyway. Good luck getting them to change the name at this point though. But we can still rename things on our end to be better aligned with the guidelines even if they don't follow along. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the first thing, my main issue is with buildings that get designed [sic] as "Cultural heritage monuments" after the fact. I don't think this building is art just because the Ukraine government decided that it has historical importance. Although of course some architecture can be art, but everything in a sub-category of Category:Art has to be. You can't have a sub-category of Category:Art where only 1 out of 10 images or whatever are actually of art or artistic architecture.

@Adamant1: Now things are getting into the more subjective level. TBH whether a piece of architecture is art often depend on personal taste. In Commons, we consider all pieces of architecture as art, since Category:Architecture itself belongs to both Category:Engineering and Category:Visual arts. So, the building you've shared is indeed a work of art, despite being too common to be considered an art in the personal level, as it is a house with a gable roof. It would be better if we have Category:Structures by subject, as it would be a better parent cat for Category:Monuments and memorials by subject than Category:Architecture by subject, since they are all structures after all. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've created Category:Structures by subject and put Category:Monuments and memorials by subject under it, thus resolving any confusion regarding its relations to art and architecture. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to belabor it but per Category:Art art is a "field of work focused on creating expressive work intended to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. I wouldn't say specific buildings are a "field of work" or are "created with the intent to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power." Sure, some are but that goes for every product created by a human. Yet most categories for products aren't subcats of Category:Art. I agree with your suggestion to create Category:Structures by subject though. That mostly resolves things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, on that note, there was a discussion over Category:Art and it was agreed to break it into Category:The Arts and Category:Works of art. However, "... in art" categories still represent "works of art of ..." and there is not an appetite to change the name even though they should go under Works of art, not Art. Obviously, the whole project is a big one and hasn't made a lot of progress, so Category:Art remains for now, but most of its contents belong in The arts or Works of art. We've been pretty lax in applying any real artistic threshold to what does or does not go under an 'in art' category. I think in general, whether something is art or not is down to the individual work, so it will always be problematic to consider an entire medium to be art. For example, we put Photographs under art, but of course not all photos are art, and to rectify this there was an attempt to limit Photographs to only artistic ones, but this failed generally, as it is difficult to convince users that they should not put photographs in Category:Photographs. Josh (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antony Blinken visit to Israel, November 2023

Secretary Blinken visited Israel twice in November 2023, this name is ambiguous A1Cafel (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A1Cafel, so you are suggesting "Antony Blinken visits to Israel, November 2023"? -- Geagea (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably adding the exact date of Secretary Blinken visited Israel for the second time, i.e. Antony Blinken visit to Israel, November 29-30th 2023. This cat can be retain as a disambiguation category. --A1Cafel (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question @A1Cafel, do you know if all images here are from that same Nov 29th visit? I think we should be okay just using the arrival date for each visit, so Category:Antony Blinken visit to Israel, 29 November 2023. In fact, I think this might be a better scheme to use as standard, even if there is only one visit in a given month. Josh (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tony Hawk's (series) guest characters

Is this category even necessary? I don't think anyone in it is known for being in a Tony Hawk game. Let alone is it a defining trait of anyone in here. Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just an egregious case of what is a widespread bad practice of categorizing categories by trivia about the subject vs. categorizing images by what they actually depict. I'd be fine with this category for depicting guest characters as they appear within the series (or on set or whatever), but not for just attaching this category to the main category of every person who has ever been a guest character there. The same applies for all such categories, but there are a number of editors who really enjoy categorizing trivia like this, so what are we to do? Josh (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs at full length

There's got to be a better way to name these categories. This one isn't so bad, but sub-categories like "Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women at full length in theatrical costumes" are totally ridiculous. Even more so if anyone tries to create sub-category of it based on the location or something. Category names aren't supposed to be full sentence descriptions of every single thing in the images anyway. So does anyone have a suggestion about how to better name these categories? Adamant1 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep full-length portraits are a specific format of portrait image, so it is perfectly useful to diffuse portraits of this type from other portraits. Whether it makes sense for any given topic/subject depends on the standard factors for whether to diffuse or not by any given criteria:

There should be sufficient files in the main (parent) category to warrant diffusion--anything over 200 is a strong case for consideration.
The diffusion criteria should be clearly defined--all the better if it is an already-established criteria used in other topics.
The diffusion criteria should have multiple sub-categories which are applicable to file in the parent category.
The diffusion criteria should be something actually depicted in the diffused files.
The diffusion criteria should not be too similar to existing diffusion methods under the topic.
The children categories for a given category should result in meaningful groupings, i.e. not just diffuse 100 files into 100 sub-categories.

There are two cases raised originally, in both cases diffused by being 'at full length', and we can apply the factors:

Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs at full length, a diffusion of Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs
Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women at full length in theatrical costumes, a diffusion of Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women in theatrical costumes (this parent does not exist, but would be the one for this topic, though its parent categories and structure are poorly named and set up)

So we can apply the factors to each of these (some apply to both equally):

There are thousands of files of 20th-century black and white portrait photographs, so this easily weighs in favor of diffusion of #1. For #2, there are several hundred 20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women in theatrical costumes, so if that category existed, diffusion should be considered. However, it does not, and if it isn't deemed worthy of creation, it certainly isn't appropriate to diffuse a category that isn't even valid to exist in its own right. So for now, I'd say either the parent needs to be created, or #2 should be deleted.
Diffusion of Portraits by format is an existing diffusion criteria for many types of portraits, and Portraits at full length is a clearly defined sub-category based on format, so this factor supports both #1 and #2.
In addition to full-length portraits, there are several other formats of 20th-century black and white portrait photographs, and at least one other format of 20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women in theatrical costumes (difficult to locate all as parent does not already exist), so this factor supports both #1 and #2 being kept.
Portrait formats are fundamentally depicted in the files directly, so both #1 and #2 comply with this.
Existing diffusion of 20th-century black and white portrait photographs by decade, gender, age, clothing, shape, and creator are fundamentally different from format. 20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women in theatrical costumes doesn't have any other diffusion so far as I could find. Thus, both #1 and #2 are okay on this score.
Each of the different formats, and full length in particular, under Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs, are well populated with dozens of files in some cases. As for Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women at full length in theatrical costumes and its sibling Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women at three-quarter length in theatrical costumes both have a lot of files (550+ and 150+ respectively). Thus, this factor supports keeping both cases.

In conclusion, both nominated categories meet all of the criteria for diffusion as 'portraits at full length' vs. other formats. The only question is whether the second case is invalidated by the lack of a valid, existing parent category.

Thus, strong keep for Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs at full length, and weak delete for Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women at full length in theatrical costumes for as long as Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women in theatrical costumes does not exist. Josh (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the side question of naming, the current name comports with the parent category at Category:Portraits at full length, so a change in name would only be warranted if the parent category name was changed. That said, I would support a rename to Category:Full-length portraits to better identify it as a specific portrait format versus an incidental intersection of topics. This would also force the term in full to be retained intact throughout subs to minimize confusion. Josh (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cosplay of Jubilee, Scarlet Witch and Polaris

There is no need for an intersection category like this. Just put the image in three categories. Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as well as for the duos Category:Cosplay of Jubilee and Scarlet Witch, Category:Cosplay of Jubilee and Polaris, and Category:Cosplay of Scarlet Witch and Polaris. But this appears to be a pattern enforced by Category:Cosplay templates like {{Cosplay trio}}; this may need to be a larger discussion. Omphalographer (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trio and supporting duos. As for the template, in this case, removing the categories removes the template. It may or may not be valid in other combos, for example characters that are related to each other in the given work as a trio, so it may be of interest to depict the trio together. As for whether the steps through duos implemented by the template is valid or not is a good question, so it might be worth opening up a comment on the template page about usage and implementation. I am not steeped enough in cosplay to know which might qualify like that, but in the case of this trio, there is only one image, so it is not really worth the diffusion anyway, so I say just delete the trio and duos for now and raise a CfD on others that might need a look.

@Jmabel any objection to deleting the duos @Omphalographer posed as well as the trio you nominated? Josh (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: not at all. I have no idea who these characters are, just found this to be ridiculous category splitting. - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're all characters from Marvel's X-Men comic books, but I'm not aware of any special significance to this grouping - they're not joined at the hips like the Three Musketeers or whatnot. Omphalographer (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by Agência Senado

I suggest this category be moved to "Category:Files from Agência Senado Flickr stream" for standardization purposes. Generally, the format "Category:Photographs by xxx" is used to categorize photographs by a specific photographer, not from a Flickr stream. Examples I can recall include: Category:Files from Palácio do Planalto Flickr stream, Category:Files from Lula Oficial Flickr stream, Category:Photographs by Ricardo Stuckert, Category:Photographs by Cadu Gomes. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc, Tm, Entbert, MB-one, Enhancing999, and Minerva97: pinging those who have edited the category. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterRus21thCentury, Guttitto, A1Cafel, and Snoowes: pinging those who have edited Files from Palácio do Planalto. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmo V, Botaurus, Sturm, and Erick Soares3: pinging those who have edited Photographs by Ricardo Stuckert. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Since it is a Flickr source, I agree with the proposal. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see much value added by the proposal. It took forever to rename them to the current name. Besides it doesn't really matter if they transited through flickr or not. That Agencia is not an individual is clear from the name, even in English.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral MB-one (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention you moved it unilaterally without inviting anyone into the discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved after proper CfD. Please refrain from making such baseless accusations. If you persist, I will report you on COM:AN/U.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but why exactly? What's the "baseless accusation"? RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You not being invited doesn't mean not anyone nor unilaterally.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999, it was pretty quick that you closed your own CfD...usually a few weeks at minimum given the normal traffic on CfDs should be allowed before self-closing a discussion. Given that there was no participation in the discussion and it was open for only a very brief window, it is reasonable that it not really be seen as representing any kind of consensus. @RodRabelo7 is essentially correct that you made this change yourself without any other input through that CfD. There is nothing automatically wrong with that, and I do it myself sometimes, but you should not bristle when another user realizes what you did and calls it into question. Josh (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Same as this Cfd--A1Cafel (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in compliance with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Official text of the Republic of China

What is the difference with Category:Official documents of the Republic of China?--125.230.83.110 14:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Josh (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latin letter combinations

A substantial portion of this category tree is made up of subcategories relating to types of railway wagons. For instance, Category:Seven Latin letter combinations‎ consists almost exclusively of subcategories like Category:UIC class Sdgmnss railway wagons, where "Sdgmnss" is a technical code describing a type of railway wagon. This is effectively just clutter; the UIC class codes are not prominent in most of the photos in these categories, and other categories already exist which specifically handle those codes (e.g. Category:UIC classes (flat list), so placing them in secondary categories based on the number of letters in those codes is not terribly useful.

I'd like to depopulate the UIC class code categories from the "N letter combinations" subcategories, and delete categories like Category:Nine Latin letter combinations which would become empty as a result. Does this seem like a reasonable cleanup?

Please note that I am not suggesting that this entire category tree be deleted. There's some marginal utility to it. But the subjects categorized should be limited to images which prominently feature a short combination of non-word letters, not every image with any kind of text in it. Omphalographer (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. I created this category 13 years ago, apparently. I don't remember why, but my interests in Latin palaeography and ligatures probably were the reason, so I'm surprised to see so many other things included. Kenmayer (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partially

Done - I've made changes to the {{UICclass}} template to stop automatically populating these categories, and I'll review a bit later once the changes have fully propagated. Omphalographer (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health by district

Superfluous intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Retrofuturism

needs to be split between modern retrofuturism and actual futurism of the past (>~70 years ago) Prototyperspective (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The history of imagining the future is different from later, deliberate evocation of that history. Also distinct from imagining a future that deliberately incorporates certain elements of the past; I mention that because Category:Steampunk is a subcat here, and it is really that last thing. It has little to do with actual past imaginings of the future, unless by "past" we now mean 30-50 years or so ago when the steampunk aesthetic began.

These distinctions are subtle, though, and I wonder how well we can get people to follow them. We may well want more "hat text" than usual for some categories in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 10:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female humans' health

No content which is not already in Category:Women's health Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Women is plural for "woman". A woman is an adult female human. Before adulthood, a female child or adolescent is referred to as a girl. per Woman. Also an adult female person per this. an adult female human being per this an adult female human per this an adult female person. Compare man ( def 1 ), girl ( def 1 ). per this. Accuracy does matter here. Many files and categories relate not just to adult women's health but also and in some cases only to other human females' health. For example, genital mutilation is usually done before the female is a woman and thus has special characteristics such as the person having limited ability to prevent this getting done to them and various vaccinations are usually or only administered during childhood or infancy and various diseases also largely affect female children. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:

Weak keep. As Prototyperspective has pointed out, almost all English dictionaries define a "woman" as an "adult female human" and it does not include girls aged below 18. However, I'm aware that "women" as a topic may also cover various aspects of female humans in general, not just adult females. Unfortunately, the category Category:Women more often focuses on individual adult females than on women topics, for which I use Category:Female humans instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Women's health -- and move all content into Category:Female humans' health. Obvious dupe. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there should be a {{Cat see also}} in Category:Women's health, if it is kept, to clarify that there is a general female-humans category too? Sinigh (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no cat see also links to categories that are direct parent categories. If there are two categories, then Female humans' health would be a cat set on Women's health and the user can go there. I have configured categories to show at the top so readily see them. Another option would be some sort of navigation template (for health cats) similar to e.g. those on the right of Category:People cycling. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this category name is a clumsy phrase that I have literally never heard anyone use. "Women's health" is the normal term, and is usually extended to girls insofar as their health issues are at all gender-specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Females' health or Female health is a better term for colloquial use and could redirect there. Female health is a widely used term. As explained above with sources, Female health isn't only about women. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Prototyperspective: I agree with Prototyperspective here, as "female" and "male" adjectives are usually applied to humans unless there are animal topics for which such female/male dichotomy is needed. If there's a need to cover female animal health separately from male animals, we can use Category:Female human health (without the "clumsy" possessive, as "human" is originally a Latin adjective before being used as a noun in English). However, since I don't see the need, sticking with Category:Female health is the best approach for female humans. Note that I have !voted "weak keep", because (as Jmabel has pointed out) some "women" topics can be extended to include girls, which may render this category pointless. Still, accuracy matters per the Selectivity Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be completely OK with "female health" or "women's health". - Jmabel ! talk 11:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wont find "Female humans' health" in medical literature. The term used is womens health, regardless of age. Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above discussion, mainly this. You may have wrong assumptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assumptions do you think I am making? I am reporting on medical literature, of which I have quite extensive acquaintance. Our categories should, if possible, correspond to the terms used in the outside world. Searches for Female health are redirected by Google to Womens health. That is the term used by the World Health Organisation for both women and girls. Rathfelder (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that you're making is that widespread use of an inaccurate term is more important than the accuracy of the term / category scope/title. Another assumption you seem to make in your comment is that your opinion what categories should correspond is shared. I don't use Google but DuckDuckGo an when I search for "Female health" it shows lots of results including from WHO. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Women and girls. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have read my reply or at least it seems like so. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHO uses the term Womens health. Our categories should reflect usage in the real world, not someones idea about accuracy.

Stop making personal comments please. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any personal comments. I don't think your comments are constructive since you ignored the points raised and just continue to comment based on your personal opinion without addressing or considering earlier input. The WHO also uses Female health and again it doesn't matter as much as falsehood. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are about the WHO. Your comments are about me. Any more and I will be referring you to the admins. And your reference is not in point. Its about Female health workers, not about female health. Rathfelder (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taylor 49, Jmabel, Prototyperspective, and Rathfelder: It seems like the term "women" can also refer to non-adult female humans, not just adults. However, virtually all dictionaries define the term "woman" as an "adult female human", as opposed to "girl". But considering the term "women" is widespread in discussions related to feminism and women's rights, both of which may involve non-adults, I think the whole Category:Female humans tree should be merged into Category:Women. A new category tree Category:Adult women can be created specifically for adult female humans. Similarly, the whole Category:Male humans tree should be merged into Category:Men, with a new category tree Category:Adult men specifically for adult male humans. The Wikipedia articles of man/woman say, "The plural (wo)men is sometimes used in certain phrases such as (wo)men's studies to denote (fe)male humans regardless of age." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No, sometimes colloquial language is false and this is a case and it may change in the future but either way correct use is widespread in scientific literature and the truth and accuracy are more important than popular colloquial language. Men are adults; women are adults and I provided sources for this fact above. Yes, the quoted sentence from the WP article is correct. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, sometimes colloquial language is false and this is a case and it may change in the future but either way correct use is widespread in scientific literature and the truth and accuracy are more important than popular colloquial language. Men are adults; women are adults and I provided sources for this fact above.

Commons is not a place to decide which one to consider "formal" or "colloquial". Rather, we consider what is "widespread" in many languages, not just English. Yes, I agree that virtually all dictionaries define these terms as adult humans. But it is also true that terms like "people" are not appropriate for very young humans like Category:Babies, yet we still categorize babies under people categories. The "widespread scientific literature " often disregard age while using these terms while focusing on gender, like men's studies/women's studies, men's rights/women's rights, men's health/women's health, and so on. Unless you're talking about constructed languages, natural languages are not always precise, be in formal or colloquial situations. Some terms are more unambiguous than others, but it does not mean that there should not be any ambiguity. We can abandon the terms Category:Men/Category:Women if they are ambiguous on whether they cover children, instead using Category:Adult male humans/Category:Adult female humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, we consider what is "widespread" in many languages, not just English. Source?
which one to consider "formal" or "colloquial". it's not about formal vs colloquial; it's about true vs false.
yet we still categorize babies under people categories. I thought so as well but actually people is also used for babies, it's just that it rarely is used to refer to babies in specific; e.g. people say there's 10 dead people including 3 dead babies but rarely is the term "people" used to refer to babies in specific since then the term babies is used. Nothing actually suggests the term would not refer to babies while I gave clear sources that confirm that women refers to adult humans.
Category:Adult male humans/Category:Adult female humans No problem with changing these cats to that since they wouldn't be false.

Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although the articles man and woman define the terms as adult males and adult females respectively, the article themselves are talking about male humans and female humans in general respectively. In particular, the paragraph in the "Education" section of man says,

Men traditionally received more education than women as a result of single-sex education. Universal education, meaning state-provided primary and secondary education independent of gender, is not yet a global norm, even if it is assumed in most developed countries. In the 21st century, the balance has shifted in many developed nations, and men now lag behind women in education.

Which is applicable to both school children and university students. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. There they were talking about men retrospectively – what an adult man has had an education during childhood. It doesn't refer to children with "men" (and even if that was the case that source wouldn't change much). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting @Joshbaumgartner: here, since he has contributed a lot on people categories, and may help us give insights regarding this issue. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is specifically about health and we should be guided by usage in health literature. Different considerations may apply in other fields. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (assuming that is the case and I largely agree).

"How Can Sport-Based Interventions Improve Health among Women and Girls? A Scoping Review" [1]
"Mental health needs among pregnant and parenting adolescent girls and young women in South Africa: A scoping review" [2]
"Female sexual health and female sexual dysfunction (FSD) are usually poorly diagnosed and treated because of…" [3]
"The Gut Microbiome and Female Health" [4]
"Is Female Health Cyclical? Evolutionary Perspectives on Menstruation" [5]
"Learning about menstrual hygiene and health is essential for adolescent girls' health education to…" [6]
"…interventions could improve women's and girls' health and well-being." [7].

Prototyperspective (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of which uses the phrase "female humans' health" or even the word "human". I'd have no problem with "Women and girls' health" or just "female health". - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the human health literature "human" is implied/implicit and would just makes the title longer, the former is not the case on WMC. "Women and girls' health" or just "female health" would also be fine. I do think the current title is best but clarifications could also be in the category description. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 There is no Category:Human health, and while there is a Category:Animal health, other than that, Category:Health appears to be exclusive to human health. I don't see a need here to impose the Universality Principle on human terms in this field, since diffusion should follow more scientific medical rationale. Our standard age/gender breakdown is more aligned to cultural/social norms, which is fine for most categories, but not necessarily here. Typically, health is broken down into children's, men's and women's with overlap where dictated by biology (see mensruation comment above. Of course biology doesn't provide a clean universal line between a girl and a woman the way society can with law and customs, so again, I wouldn't impose our standard cultural/social standard on this topic. Josh (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I'll create Category:Human health for things exclusively related to humans. Anyway, you're right that the terms "men's" and "women's" are not dictated by age when it comes to biology, but it is true for many cases. If I'm not wrong, the terms "women's rights" and "men's rights" actually refers to rights of males and females respectively, regardless of age. I've created the redundant categories Category:Male rights and Category:Female rights to follow the standard human stages of development ({{Category navigation/people/sidenote}}), and we have Category:Boys' rights and Category:Girls' rights. Anyway, in this case, the division of health into children's, men's, and women's is more sensible. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the division of health into children's, men's, and women's is more sensible Not sure what you mean by that. Please consider what has been said earlier.

Of course biology doesn't provide a clean universal line between a girl and a woman the way society can with law and customs, so again, I wouldn't impose our standard cultural/social standard on this topic Agree. That is exactly one more reason why there needs to be children's health, female health and male health. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

either merge with women's health or

Delete per Rathfelder. The medical field is just not called that. The category name is deeply weird and sounds like aliens trying to decide whether they should abduct 'female bovines' today or 'nubile bipedals in nocturnal garments'. "Female humans" are called "women", "women's health" pertains to all fields of medicine that cannot be generalized to all genders. I do understand that there is a whole category tree behind "Male/female humans", but a lot of that parent category also just weird. Sure, replace "human" with another noun, and it is a fine distinction (i.e. "Female singers" and "Male actors" are fully okay with me), but I don't ever want to read about "Male human's sports", "Olympian tabletennis competition among female humans", "human businessfemales" and "human salesmales". Weird!

I'd argue that "fe/male humans" is not a superior category name compared to "wo/men". You may get the clarification that babies and girls are also included given how some definitions exclude "boys" from "men". But go one step deeper, and most of these categories are directly distinguishing between "men" and "boys" anyway, as well as "women" and "girls". And then you have to start to painstakingly categorize images by people's age, and you can't know that in a lot of cases, especially with old photos and paintings. In case you know all the dates, you have to creepily distinguish between "Adolescent girls of <country> in 2018" who eventually become "Young women of <country> in 2021" halfway through the year, because human infant individuals tend to grow into human adult individuals. The ageist categories also depend entirely on arbitrary definitions: Category:Women of Benin gives 7 age classifications, and these classes clash with the 9 age classifications from Category:Girls of Benin. Both get their definitions from en-WP's articles about the human development, but they don't even agree if you stop being a baby at 2 or 4 years old. Note in that context also Category:Men of Benin, where their exact age appears to be totally unimportant.

Most cases don't require that granularity, in my opinion: "Women" (= female humans) includes principally all ages. There can still be "girls" subcategories where "woman" and "child" overlap. --Enyavar (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Female humans" are called "women" objectively false. I'll copy paste from above:

Women is plural for "woman". A woman is an adult female human. Before adulthood, a female child or adolescent is referred to as a girl. per Woman. Also an adult female person per this. an adult female human being per this an adult female human per this an adult female person. Compare man ( def 1 ), girl ( def 1 ). per this. Accuracy does matter here. Many files and categories relate not just to adult women's health but also and in some cases only to other human females' health. For example, genital mutilation is usually done before the female is a woman and thus has special characteristics such as the person having limited ability to prevent this getting done to them and various vaccinations are usually or only administered during childhood or infancy and various diseases also largely affect female children. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And when is this adulthood reached? You give definitions, but not one of them is able to give a guideline that is able to make the "obvious" distinction when a person stops being a girl and begins being a women. The most common globally accepted definition might be 18+, but that is a generalization and regulated by law. Biological adulthood (what your definitions reference) is entirely individual, and most teenagers reach biological adulthood before 18+. To complicate matters, in many jurisdictions, full adulthood is reached at 21+ or even later.

That is why I think this is an unnecessary can of worms. --Enyavar (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is simple: no distinction needed with "Female health". Prototyperspective (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Replacement of "women's" with "female"

@Enyavar, Prototyperspective, Joshbaumgartner, Jmabel, and Rathfelder: Seems like the main problem here is that "woman" is defined as an "adult female human" in all English dictionaries, while the possessive form "women's" is commonly extended to female children (i.e. "girls"), like "women's health", "women's rights" and "women's studies". Although Enyavar is right that categorizing people by age is getting too much, the categorizing scheme is widely adopted partly due to the presence of myriads of categories using "men" and "women", and all dictionaries restrict these terms to adults. But Prototyperspective wants to maintain consistency in Commons categories more stringently, interpreting "women's" as a mere possessive form of "women" and not as a separate word. So I think the only way forward is to ditch terms like "women's" in topics inclusive to all ages (or not associated to a particular age group). So we can use Category:Female health, Category:Female rights and Category:Female human studies, replacing "women's" with "female" (or "female human"). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a large and well developed category tree in Category:Women's health. You want to rework it? That needs a much wider discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Category:Women's hospitals should be moved to Category:Female hospitals. But Category:Violence against women can be categorized under Category:Violence against female humans, which itself would be a subcat of Category:Female health. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's hospitals is the term used in the outside world. I dont think you will find the term Female hospital used anywhere. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start more discussions if that is what you want to do. Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Jarble: , who has apologized in many category discussions for creating "redundant" categories like Category:Male humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palaces of justice

Upmerge to Category:Courthouses as "palace of justice" is just the literal translation of non-English terms for "courthouse". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2 men

already exist Category:2 male humans GioviPen ^{GP msg} 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiovanniPen:

Keep Almost all English dictionaries define a "man" as an "adult male human" and it does not include boys aged below 18. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2 male humans

as per Category:2 men, redundance GioviPen ^{GP msg} 11:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Male humans includes boys and babies, men do not. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiovanniPen and Prototyperspective:

Keep Almost all English dictionaries define a "man" as an "adult male human" and it does not include boys aged below 18. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Nations

Just a container of Commonwealth countries with no specific significance of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Nations as an organization. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, current or historical colonial affiliation implies a shared history of law and social services and regulatory traditions, including the health system. A similar containerization could make sense, for example, in some transport topics (traffic signs, side of traffic), etc.--ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Births by location

This category seems to for lists of random people and where they were born. Which is fine in theory, but is for images "of an organism releasing its offspring" and that's clearly not the purpose of this category or it's subcats. Per Commons:Categories "we should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category......The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous."

Another issue with this is that places of birth are usually meaningless trivia except in rare instances, but there's already Category:Birthplaces for locations where notable people were born. This category seems to just be a duplicate of that one at best though.

So my proposed solution would be to either completely axe this and it's subcategories outright or at least confine it to media related to actual births and remove the subcategories from ones for people. No one knows or cares that most or all of the people in Category:Births at sea were born at sea, I doubt it's a defining characteristic of any of the people either, and unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any images on here of actual births taking place at sea. So there's really no point in keeping the category. Category:Births in taxi looks like the one exception to that but I don't think a single image of a child being born in a taxi justifies the whole category system. @Omphalographer: and @RoyZuo: Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who started this discussion: My general feeling is that non-defining biographical facts, like dates or places of birth, don't belong in Commons. Displaying data sourced from Wikidata through templates like {{Wikidata Infobox}} is fine, but Commons should not be responsible for maintaining this data, or creating categories which index it. That's what Wikidata and Wikipedia are for. There's undoubtedly a lot of other category systems which fit the same pattern and which should probably be removed as well, but this is a starting point. Omphalographer (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It quickly became obvious that the editors who built these categories are using the Commons category structure to further the aims of Wikidata more than the aims of Commons. However, eliminating these categories will not cure a long-standing POV issue. In fact, it will only make it worse. See, before these categories existed, editors were using "People of" categories for the exact same purpose. When I discovered Category:Eminem some while back, he was only categorized according to his birthplace of St. Joseph, Missouri. This is an obvious problem, because in the public eye, he's almost universally associated with Detroit and nowhere else. One I didn't fix was Category:Jack Brooks. The only reason we have a category for Jack Brooks is because he spent 42 years in the U.S. House representing Beaumont, Texas. There's no categorization present which acknowledges this. Instead, he's only categorized according to the place in Louisiana where he happened to have been born. Even if Commons lacks an equivalent version of WP:CATDEFINING, the same principle applies: adding only birthplaces to these categories amounts to "trivial details" if those places have zero to do with the person's public life. We also need to get rid of "People of" categories if editors refuse to populate them properly.

It's not just a simple matter of inclusion and exclusion. Apparently, there are editors who believe that the "People of" tree should correspond only to data points found in Wikidata. I added Category:People of Chicago to File:Paul Harvey.jpg, which was later removed by Rhadamante after copying over categories from the file to Category:Paul Harvey. Tell me, what would you go by, the lack of any mention of Chicago in Wikidata, or credible sources such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ("Harvey composed his twice-daily news commentaries from a downtown Chicago office near Lake Michigan"), WGN ("Harvey moved to Chicago in the 1940s and originated his broadcasts from the city for more than five decades"), the Chicago Tribune ("She (his wife) is the one who persuaded him to come to Chicago in 1944 and try his hand at network radio") or the Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Following a medical discharge from the Army Air Corps in 1944, he shortened his name to Paul Harvey and began broadcasting for Chicago radio station WENR")? The quality of information on Wikidata is piss-poor and the quality of sourcing is even worse. Why should we capitulate to that simply to satisfy a small handful of Commons editors who are averse to the hard work needed to properly curate data?

Despite presenting these examples, you shouldn't get hung up on them, because the list of examples goes on and on and on and fucking on. The prevalence of such only causes the real world to view Commons as one more site populated by people with a detachment from reality. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think inevitably a lot of people are going to be associated with places, and distinguishing a birthplace (and, where relevant, a place of death) seems to me to be appropriate. In particular, I think it is very likely that a fair number of people go looking for images of people associated with the place where they themselves live. Again, we come back to the fact that categories ultimately exist to serve end users. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t see how or why this category is invalid; this is a container category for a bunch of subjective, valid subcategories. The main objection I’m seeing is “meaningless trivia”— as defined by who? Every single category is “meaningless trivia” to somebody! Also, User:RadioKAOS, what on Earth are you talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless trivia as far as it being a way for users to look for or organize media related to people. There is a point where these types of categories are to granular and not useful even if you want to claim otherwise. I'd say that's particular true in this case since there's already Category:Birthplaces for notable birthplaces to begin with. But let me throw out an example. There's a semi-well known tech entrepreneur who was born in a hospital in the same town where I'm currently living because their mother happened to go into labour while staying at hotel here one weekend. He's never actually lived or had anything else to do with here though outside of that though, and frankly I think it would be weird for a category related to him to be a child category of one for the town. No one knows or cares that he was born here. It's in no way notable what-so-ever. Ergo it's “meaningless trivia." but you'd apparently think that would be perfectly fine "just because" though.

Semi-related to that, but a lot of these categories are sub-categories of one's for "People of" categories. I wouldn't call most of these people "people of" the locations where they were born either. As it implies that we have media related to the person and said location. Which inherently isn't the case with most or all of these categories. I think it kind of follows that every sub-category of Category:Dili (city) should have images of Dili though. but if you look at Category:Fernando Sylvan which is a sub-category of Category:Births in Dili there's isn't any actual media of Dili in there. So I really don't see what the point is. Again, that's why it's meaningless trivia. Because you have a bunch of sub-categories for locations that contain no actual media of, or related to, said locations just because the person was born there. this image has absolutely nothing to do with Dili what-so-ever but it's still in a subcategory for Dili just because Fernando Sylvan happen to be born there. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category tree per discussion. Such categorisation makes sense on Wikipedia, but not on Commons. I don't see how the effort maintaining it vs the actual, realistic navigation benefit makes this worth having. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CH-NB-Photographs of the Grisons (canton of Switzerland)

seems to be mostly the same as Category:CH-NB-Graubünden (Kanton) in a different language
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Kategorie CH-NB-Graubünden enthält nicht nur Fotografien, sondern auch Druckgrafiken und Zeichnungen. Es sind keine identischen Kategorien. Swiss National Library (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die eine ist eine Subkategorie der anderen. Die Fotografien sollten dann nicht auch in Category:CH-NB-Graubünden (Kanton) sein.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the files that were in both categories from Category:CH-NB-Graubünden (Kanton). This solves some of it.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Structures by height

The point in categories is to help people organize media related to a specific subject. Not act as stores of trivial information that serves no practical purpose to categorizing images. To that end (most if not all) of these subcategories seem way to granular and trivial to be a meaningful way to categorize images of structures.

Just to give one example we have Category:5-meter-tall structures, which contains images of Category:George Henry Thomas Memorial. Is anyone seriously going to argue that people know about or care that the George Henry Thomas Memorial is 5-meters tall or that it's a defining characteristic of the statue (let alone one that even relates to images of it)?

Is there really that much a meaningful difference between a 5-meter and 6-meter tall statue that justifies them being in special categories for how tall they are? Not to say the height of a statue isn't an interesting fact, but it's just not one that IMO most people care about when looking for images of them. At least at the per meter level. There's also already infoboxes for storing that kind of information anyway.

There's also the side issue of how the subcats seem to have arbitrary start and end heights. Like Category:23-49-meter-tall structures. So I think in light of that the other issues that at the end of the day these categories should just be axed since they are totally arbitrary, to granular, and meaningless trivia in most (if not all) instances. @Omphalographer: and @RoyZuo: Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: There are some categories defined by height that should not be axed, like ~~Category:High-rises,~~ Category:Skyscrapers, Category:Supertalls, and Category:Megatalls, as they are useful for navigation. The only categories that does not seem useful to me are "x-meter-tall buildings/structures" categories, unless there is more than one building/structure with similar heights. Instead, I would prefer categories like Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings, despite seeming to have "arbitrary start and end heights", since people tend to categorize buildings and other structures by height ranges instead of exact heights. However, I don't like Category:0-22-meter-tall buildings and Category:23-49-meter-tall buildings categories as more arbitrary than Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings. Anyway, I prefer categorizing buildings/structures by height like this:

0-99-meter-tall-buildings/structures
- 0-9-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 10-19-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 20-29-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 30-39-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 40-49-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 50-59-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 60-69-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 70-79-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 80-89-meter-tall buildings/structures
- 90-99-meter-tall buildings/structures
100-199-meter-tall-buildings/structures
200-299-meter-tall-buildings/structures
300-399-meter-tall-buildings/structures
400-499-meter-tall-buildings/structures
500-599-meter-tall-buildings/structures
600-699-meter-tall-buildings/structures
700-799-meter-tall-buildings/structures
800-899-meter-tall-buildings/structures
900-999-meter-tall-buildings/structures
1000-1099-meter-tall-buildings/structures

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High-rises should be axed, as it does not seem to have a commonly agreed definition. But Category:Skyscrapers should be kept, as it is nowadays usually defined as buildings taller than 100 or 150 metres. I would stick with the 100-metre definition, as it is consistent with my above proposal. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I'm not even concerned about whether skyscrapers has an exact height limit. The reason it makes sense to me to keep is that it is a commonly understood concept that users will expect to find contents of to illustrate the topic, even if they don't have a clue what height they are looking for. Josh (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The present categories partly came from a previous discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2012/09/Category:High-rises, where I ended up replacing the Category:High-rises by height and Category:Skyscrapers by height categories. They originals were kind of useless and misused, because there's no single definition for high rises or skyscrapers. I ended up regretting it, because there are thousands of these kinds of categories, and even using scripts, it ends up as a mega-project. --ghouston (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: Thanks for reply.

They originals were kind of useless and misused, because there's no single definition for high rises or skyscrapers.

While there are several definitions of high-rises, there are only two modern definitions of skyscrapers that are widely used, one is 100 metres (330 ft) and the other is 150 metres (490 ft). I stick with the 100-metre (330 ft) definition, as it is not only a round figure but can also cover skyscrapers taller than 150 metres (490 ft). Categories are meant for navigation by end-users and not for ontology, and if someone wants to look for buildings in India taller than average, they can find them at Category:Skyscrapers in India, as average buildings in a given country or city (not just India) are usually shorter than 100 metres (330 ft), although there are exceptions (like Hong Kong). Category:High-rises is really superficial to me, as it is ill-defined. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree about high-rises versus skyscrapers. At least IMO the definition of the later is clear enough to have categories for. The former though, not so much. If you look at the Wikipedia article for high-rises it's pretty ambiguous. I think the definition for skyscapers on Wikipedia is pretty clear though. "Modern sources define skyscrapers as being at least 100 meters." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghouston I appreciate the effort, and the frankness about what a mega-project it can become. I sympathize and have been there before! Josh (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 I agree fully with your sentiment here. Deciding that because we know 'Fact XYZ' about a topic, we have to add a 'Category:Fact XYZ', is a big problem in some topics (there is an entire page of parent categories for some people now). Also, diffusing for the sake of diffusion is an ongoing problem that I disagree with doing.

I am very liberal about categorization structure for what is actually depicted in an image or other file, but when categorizing categories, or categorizing things in images by other facts about the subject that are not depicted in the image, I think we need to be far more judicious. For example, if we know a building is 330 m tall, does that mean we should categorize a detail image of an interior room or external feature of that building under Category:300-349-meter-tall buildings, even though the image does nothing to depict the height of the building or even anything related to its height? I don't see the point in that.

I general, I am not a big fan of this kind of categorization. I've given a few attempts at working with such category structures to make them more useful and maintainable, but I have rarely seen results that make it worth the effort. If someone else is committed to do it, I won't get in the way of keeping this, but if not, I say we simplify it back down to common concepts people will actually seek. Josh (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nazi symbols status

" This category should be empty. Any content should be recategorised." But it isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though many, if not most, of these are being populated by {{Nazi symbol}} (via {{Nazi symbol/layout}}); the category name has been there since the template's inception in 2009, but the category was renamed a few days ago. Make a protected edit request on the layout template to get this fixed. Omphalographer (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omphalographer and Rathfelder. My question is: what was the point of Category:Nazi symbols status in the first place and what's changed after the category was moved (pinging also Adinar0012). Something is similar with categories: Category:Communist symbols, Category:Symbols of communism and Category:Communist symbols status which needs to be fixed. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I dont know how to fix templates. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original edit should just be reverted and the category deleted. "Status" makes absolutely no sense and there's no reason to have it in the name of the top level category for Nazi symbols anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, I agree. It is pointless to have "status" in the title (unless it means something that I'm missing). However, I'm unable to understand your argument. Which original edit are you referring to? --Ratekreel (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been clearer about it but I'm refering to the original edit or really edits that created the category and moved the files there. Essentially the files should be upmerged and the category deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move: As far as I am aware, it is a non-controversial edit to move files from a redirect to the redirect target unless there is some apparent reason such a move does not make sense.

As for whether or not to keep the redirect, it doesn't really add any search value to make it easier to find the target so I'm fine with deleting it, though if anyone has a reason to keep it, I don't see that as particularly harmful. Josh (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikireality

What is this? Found with this report: Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Funds of the State Archives of Ternopil Oblast - Fund 37

what is this? please add categories. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this discussion? This bad name category. Correct category Category:Funds of State Archive of Ternopil Oblast - Fund 37. I remove files to correct category. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for solving this. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mexican insurgents

which insurgents? seems to miss files and is unclear and has no existing categories set. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no Category:Insurgents and thus no need to diffuse it by nationality. Josh (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:La lucha (advertisements)

please clarify what this is. has only one file so probably doesn't need a category. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statistics about consumption in Australia

is this only about financial consumption / expenditures? it currently has no existing category set. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Đại số 10

what is this? found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bulnes, Chile

Confused Paseo Bulnes in Santiago de Chile with Bulnes, a commune in Chile. Brunnaiz (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos by Terra X by language of subtitle files

@JimKillock: These categories seem to be redundant to a proper search query. For example, incategory:"Videos by Terra X" incategory:"Files with closed captioning in French" yields Category: Videos by Terra X with French subtitle file, but does not need additional maintenance. Maybe I’m missing some detail here? Ping Prototyperspective as creator of Videos by Terra X by language of subtitle files supercategory and a user currently maintaining this and its subcategories. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 08:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you use WMC a bit more you'll notice that countless categories are theoretically redundant because some advanced deepcatogory searches would also show their contents to a few expert users who thought of the respective concept. The use of these categories is that you can go to a place with more videos by Terra X with that subtitle language from the video by clicking the category link. It's also useful for people creating transcripts / subtitles. The search query is used to make sure these categories are complete and don't miss any files and this maintenance should also be done for lots of other categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women and education

Rename to Category:Female education, as this topic covers female humans in general, not just women. For instance, Category:Female students can be either girls or women. Also consistent with Category:Male education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes sense and the cat is mostly about girls, not women otherwise the redlinked cat could become a parent cat and the current cat be about things like lifelong-learning, adult job education, etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also Category:Female educators, as they are generally women. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white images of men

Category for only one AI-generated B&W image of a private detective. Most B&W images of men are photos, and the B&W images of men that are not photos can be categorized under the appropriate subcats of Category:Black and white images and Category:Men. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in business

Mostly redundant to Category:Businesswomen, and Category:Female billionaires are not necessarily related to business. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women and comics

It has only one subcat, Category:Female characters in comics, which is not always related to women, as "women" refers to adult females and young girls are commonly depicted in comics. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, this category can be used to categorize Category:Female comics creators, but I'm not sure if "women and/in topic" categories are always useful for every single topics related to women/females. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former countries

It's not really clear to me how useful this category is since most, if not, all of the subcategories in this aren't for countries, former or otherwise. For instance looking over Category:Former countries by name the subcategories seem to be a mix of former "empires", colonies, kingdoms, grand duchies', Etc. Etc. I guess the categories could just be removed, but it seems kind of pointless to keep this if it's only going to contain a couple of categories to begin with. As I'm not sure there's that many former countries anyway or that it's even a useful way to categorizes countries even if there is. So does anyone have an opinion about it or care if it's axed? Adamant1 (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand your argument. Besides being rather long-winded and rambling I don’t see how a category being cluttered with junk makes it invalid. “Former countries” is about as objective as they come it’s a country that doesn’t exist anymore. I see it’s mostly full of categories of the format “X thing as it relates to foreign countries”; that seems perfectly valid and appropriate to me. What are you even objecting to here? Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like you've never written a multi-sentence paragraph before. Regardless, I'm objecting to the fact that the category is to subjective to be useful. I don't really see the point in the category if its just going to be used as a dump for random things that aren't countries. Category names aren't suppose to be ambigious. Although I'd agree the term "country" isn't ambigious in meaning per se it seems to be in this particular instance for some reason. Laural Lodged's response below being a good example of that. Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An empire is a country, a kingdom is a country, a grand duchy can be a country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At that point a country is essentially any semi-organized border. I think the term has a certain modern connotation to it having to do with governed nations though that just doesn't apply when it comes to kingdoms and the like. No one calls places like the Kingdom of Algarve countries. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, Dronebogus, and Laurel Lodged: The definition of "country" has been disputed since June last year on whether it only includes sovereign states or other non-sovereign entities, like Category:Dependent territories and Category:Constituent countries (link: Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/06/Category:Wales). Since the discussion has not been closed yet, I usually consider only sovereign states as countries in categories. So Category:Former countries should list at least the sovereign states that no longer exist. Adamant1 is right that Category:Kingdom of the Algarve should not be called a country as it was a part of the Category:Kingdom of Portugal, a sovereign state. Former kingdoms should be categorized under Category:Former kingdoms instead of Category:Former countries, unless the kingdom is also a sovereign state. I don't think colonies should be categorized under Category:Former countries, as they were administrative divisions of colonial empires. However, since we tend to categorize dependent territories with countries and many colonies of former empires have evolved into dependent territories, categorizing colonies and dependent territories under Category:Former countries may make sense. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former colonies should be categorised as former colonies. I agree that "countries" should only include sovereign states, so that excludes the Algarve. It should probably also exclude the SSRs of the USSR like Category:Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. Some further thinking will be necessary for Category:Former countries by status and its children; I don't have an answer yet. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Former sovereign states”? Dronebogus (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Yep, seems we have to discuss what does 'country' mean again. There didn't seem to be any clear consensus on how to change Category:Countries from its current status as 'sovereign states, sort of.' There certainly were a lot of different opinions on how we should define them though. Given that, we muddle on with a relatively broad scope of what can be considered a country, including sovereign states and pretty much anything someone can make an impassioned case for being considered a country of some sort, or at least can filibuster any attempt to exclude it.

But what about 'former'? I don't think there is much debate over what it means, but should it be used at all? Categorization by at-the-moment status of something (current/former/old/etc.) is generally a bad idea because it requires active maintenance to insure accuracy. That said, it is used in several topics, and if maintenance is kept up in reasonable time, that can be overcome. In the case of countries, they aren't exactly coming and going on a daily basis like airplanes in airline fleets are, so I think keeping Category:Former countries is probably okay.

Thus concluding:

What should Category:Former countries contain? Any topic that belongs in Category:Countries yet does not currently exist as a country.
Should it be renamed Category:Former sovereign states? No. Per the Universality Principle, a 'Category:Former X' under 'Category:X' should use the same term for 'X' at both levels.
Can we create Category:Former sovereign states? Absolutely, under Category:Sovereign states so long as it exists. Any topic which belongs in Category:Sovereign states but is not currently a sovereign state would be a candidate for Category:Former sovereign states. This same answer applies to Category:Former colonies under Category:Colonies, etc.
Should contents be moved from Category:Countries to Category:Former countries? Currently, that is how it is done, but this should be changed. Requiring a user to know the status of a country before they can access that country's category is not a good system. Instead, it would be better for Category:Former countries and status categories to be indices and for countries to be listed there in addition to within their normal country location. This way a user is not required to know the status or look in multiple places when that is not desired, or they can look in 'former countries' when they actually do want to refine their view.

Josh (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Standing animals

We already have a consensus to follow "people activity" and "people posture" for activity and posture people categories respectively at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:People by posture. But there was no discussion regarding animal categories and subcategories. So I want to see if there's a consensus to follow this pattern in animal categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "standing" are inherently ambiguous when referring to a quadrupedal animal - it can be interpreted either as standing flat on four legs, or standing up on the hind legs. (Other postures like "sitting" or "lying down" are similarly ambiguous.) I don't know what the right solution is here, but I don't think copying the category structure from humans is it. Since it's so overwhelmingly common for quadrupeds to be photographed standing on four legs, I almost wonder if it might make sense to omit this category altogether and only categorize animals in other postures. Omphalographer (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like "standing" are inherently ambiguous when referring to a quadrupedal animal - it can be interpreted either as standing flat on four legs, or standing up on the hind legs.

@Omphalographer: I think "standing" refers to both for quadrupeds. We can create Category:Animals standing on four legs and Category:Animals standing on hind legs to cover two types of standing for quadrupeds. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four-legged animals standing on rear legs already exists. --Pitke (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hahn Hi-Boy

instead of creating a cat with 1 file and making it pollute e.g. cat "Agricultural machinery", cats like that should be deleted and the file moved. found via Commons:Report_UncategorizedCategories_with_only_infobox_categories Prototyperspective (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Thanks for this request. However, I do not know, how to link such a file via Wikidata to the article(s) with the same name (in various language Wikipedias) unless we create a category on Wikimedia Commons. I would even go so far, to say that a bot should create automatically categories on Wikimedia Commons of people, whose photographs are displayed by Wikidata. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boris Romanovsky

There is an identical category about this artist - Category:Borys Romanowski Slider one (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please add {{Category redirect}} to one of them.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with scarves

What should be the preferred word to use instead of X in "people X scarves"? Some categories are using "with" (e.g. Category:People with scarves, Category:Male humans with scarves, Category:Female humans with scarves), while many others are using "wearing" (e.g. Category:Men wearing scarves, Category:Women wearing scarves). I prefer "wearing", as scarves are something to wear, and many clothing categories are using this word. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current ATR aircraft of Air North

We usually don't create categories with "current". It's either an aircraft or a destroyed/disassembled/retired aircraft. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. There are over 800 such categories for airlines and has been for the last 7-8 years or more. Ardfern (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with SBB on this. The assumption is that everything that is not current is in a "former" category while everything in the category is current. Manual re-categorisation is how this is achieved. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before we had current and former all aircraft of a type and airline were listed as one long list (eg 147 Airbus A320 of EasyJet or 499 Boeing 737-800 of Ryanair), making it impossible to see what aircraft were current or no longer in use with the airline, which wasn't much use to anyone. Ardfern (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413, @Laurel Lodged You are completely correct, but there are a dedicated few users who want to use these particular categories as their personal list-making tool. If they are legitimately keeping them up-to-date, then in the end it is not terribly harmful, and they seem pretty committed to this activity, so I'm fine with keeping those that are being accurately maintained. On the other hand, if you find some that are not being maintained, we should be free to remove this kind of thing as in that case it becomes actually harmful to keep in place (being misleading at best). Also, we should still maintain all of the contents of the 'current/former' lists in the normal location (not diffused by currency), as requiring a user to know whether or not an aircraft is current or not in order to find it is asinine. Josh (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Talud

Can this category be renamed to Category:Embankments in the Netherlands? It looks like Category:Embankments is about the same subject, but I am not at all an expert on this subject. And I think the parents are not correct. JopkeB (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed to Category:Embankments in the Netherlands!

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 13:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a bit too early. There was a suggestion on Wikidata to ask these kind of question on ChatGPT, and the result was:

"Talud" in Dutch refers to a slope or incline of the land, often found along roads, rivers, or dikes. It can describe any sloping surface, such as a natural hillside or a man-made structure like a dam.
"Embankment" in English typically refers to a raised structure made of earth or other materials, built to hold back water or support a road, railway, or canal. An embankment often includes a slope but emphasizes the purpose of creating a barrier or supporting structure.

Key Differences:

Talud focuses on the incline or slope itself, whether natural or artificial.
Embankment usually refers to a man-made structure designed for a specific purpose (e.g., to prevent flooding or provide support), and it often includes a slope.

So my conclusion is that both categories should stay. Perhaps you can undo you actions (including the deletion request)? Then we might perhaps first discuss the outcome of ChatGPT. JopkeB (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reversed what you asked for!

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Antoine.01! I now suggest:

Keep both.
Add descriptions to both of them.
Rename Category:Talud to Category:Taluds because category names should be in plural, at least in this case. Make sure the parent categories and Wikidata item are OK.
Create Category:Taluds in the Netherlands and move files about the Netherlands to this category.
Search for more files about taluds and copy them to one of these two (or, if necessary, create more subcategories).
Keep Category:Embankments in the Netherlands as well, and search for more files that fit in.

What do you think? JopkeB (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

83 / 5.000

Hi JopkeB, I will see what is possible or if there are more categories on this topic!?!

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?

It is a good practice on Commons to wait until this discussion has been closed before we make any changes. Would you please be patient? There might be other people with other ideas. JopkeB (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were giving directions of what you expected me to do and I did that!? But if there are those who want it differently, I think that's fine!

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 14:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, no, the only direction was to revert the edits, given on October 10. The rest are suggestions to be discussed, with you and others who want to join this discussion. So, please give your opinion about my suggestions. JopkeB (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places on Lake Erie in New York (state)

categories like this should not be in categories about lakes like Category:Lake Erie in New York (state) – instead they should have share some parent cat further up about the region and maybe link to each other via cat see alsos Prototyperspective (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1940 in India

Please fix the self-categorization introduced here. Found via Commons:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that. Pakistan didn't exist yet in 1940, so this seems purely disruptive. However, I would rename all pre-independence categories as "British India" or "Pre-independence India". Yann (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective and Yann: See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of Langen family (Westphalia)

Bitte umbennenen in: Coats of arms of Langen family (Westphalia). Sorry GerritR (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oder einfach löschen. Hab die Kategorie geleert.--GerritR (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human geography

This needs cleanup including cat removals/moves and more specific cats: cats as broad and unacademic like Category:Fields shouldn't be subcats of Category:Academic disciplines by topic. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with a complete reorganization of the categories.--Ciaurlec (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I'm interested with complete reorganization of categories like this. But it would be better if you can suggest some cleanups for which this CFD is warranted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I named one concrete example (removal of cat "Fields") and it has already been fixed. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instrumental music

Please clarify whether it's merely (fully defined by) "music without spoken or sung language" or whether there are more conditions like it extensively featuring musical instruments instead of only/mostly noninstrument electronic music. I think the latter is the case but the categeorization currently does not match that and Category:Instrumental music videos is in cat Category:Music videos by language. It needs categorization changes (e.g. via new subcategories). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M. Ward taken with Canon EOS 100D

Feels overly specific. If we had to create intersection categories between people and cameras, we'd explode the number of categories. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Same for other subcategories of Category:Taken with Canon EOS 100D.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisympathisant: Please let us know how you feel about this suggestion to remove these categories. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me this cat is ok, because if you remove it, these picts with one topic may "walk around" between other topics. KR Wikisympathisant (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! Could you clarify what you mean by "walk around between other topics"? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove all the categories, all picts are mixed independent of the content/ topics. I don't know about other users, but in my opinion the topic-categories as "food" and so on are helpful. Because than there is a system, even if you don't use search tools. KR Wikisympathisant (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic isn't "Canon EOS 100D". If if a topical distinction within Category:Mark Ward (politician) should be made it shouldn't be by "Canon EOS 100D". Also the inconsistency in naming could be fixed and aligned with the main category.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not a catgory People or humans taken with 100D, Mark Ward could be a subcategory, but I guess you don't want a new subcategory, do you? Fixing inconstencies in naming would help reducing the problem, in a People-cat, too ... Wikisympathisant (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only suitable subcategories at Category:Taken with Canon EOS 100D I can think of would be some by the lens used (w:Canon EOS 100D notes "Lens Interchangeable"). See Category:Taken with Canon EOS 850D e.g.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical music from Incompetech

Category with one file (moved to Category:Unclassifiable music from Incompetech). 2603:7000:B800:F04:C403:C3AE:16A4:FE99 22:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War memorials abroad

Country cat names like "war memorials of X located outside X" are too long, when we can shorten this name to "X-ian war memorials abroad" without causing ambiguity, like Category:Indian culture abroad. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can also rename them to simply "war memorials of X", with "war memorials in X" and "war memorials of X in Y" (where Y is another country) as subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red Lion pubs in Manchester

There seems to only be 1 pub in the metropolitan district of Manchester and I have created a category on it Category:Red Lion, Manchester but if there are others it could be moved to Category:Red Lion, Withington. While we normally sub divide by city I'm not sure its a good idea when it comes down to buildings by name unless there are many otherwise by county namely Category:Red Lion pubs in Greater Manchester is sufficent. This should be deleted or redirected to the only one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1793 works in the United Kingdom

There was no United Kingdom in 1793. It was established in 1801 Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:1793 works in Great Britain would seem the best solution, together with all the other 1790s categories. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and all the other UK categories before 1801. Rathfelder (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ⵉⵔⵏ

I removed a series of self-categorizations from this and some of the subcategories, but all categories lack English descriptions and the entire structure appears to be circular.

Title	Page ID	Namespace	Size (bytes)	Last change
ⵉⴱⵔⵉⵔ	141486700	14	249	20241010230840
ⵢⵏⵏⴰⵢⵔ	141487137	14	255	20241010230824
ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ	141487215	14	249	20241010230514
ⵎⴰⵕⵚ	141487243	14	243	20241010230836
ⵢⵓⵏⵢⵓ	141487341	14	249	20241010230843
ⵢⵓⵍⵢⵓⵣ	141487397	14	255	20241010230847
ⵎⴰⵢⵢⵓ	141487434	14	249	20241010230851
ⵖⵓⵛⵜ	141487484	14	243	20241010230854
ⵛⵓⵜⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ	141487501	14	267	20241010230858
ⴽⵟⵓⴱⵕ	141487543	14	249	20241010230902
ⵏⵓⵡⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ	141487647	14	267	20241010230906
ⴰⵢⵢⵓⵔ	141488443	14	374	20231127181046
ⴷⵓⵊⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ	141488594	14	267	20241010230910
ⵉⵔⵏ	141488632	14	403	20241010225006
ⴰⴽⵓⴷ	141488648	14	374	20231127181353
ⴰⵙⴰⴽⵓⴷ	141488651	14	426	20231127181555

Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ appears to be the only one containing a file. I'd rename this to Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ (text)] and delete all other ones.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The single image in Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ is already categorized sufficiently in Category:Tamazight calendar cards (image set). These categories are Amazigh names for months, as well as a few words related to the calendar (e.g. ⴰⵢⵢⵓⵔ = "month"); categories for these topics already exist with English names. I'm also taking steps to address some overcategorization on images in that set (e.g. all of them were categorized as Category:Day). Omphalographer (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works in the United Kingdom by year

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801. Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rosy McMichael

empty category 2A02:810B:581:C300:D871:768A:48C8:79 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guacaneme family

Empty category 2A02:810B:581:C300:D871:768A:48C8:79 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Train stations in Switzerland photographed in 2021

There is a question if the redirect should be removed or not.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, this category, which exists in several countries, is interesting as it allows a search on buildings. 2021 in rail transport in Switzerland will lead you to subcategories about trains when Train stations in Switzerland photographed in 2021 is more about train stations as buildings as it's a daughter category of Buildings in Switzerland photographed in 2021 which has a lot of daughter categories about different types of buildings (churches, museums, houses, mosques etc.). Birdie (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support --Lukas Beck (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Mühlen family

Bitte zwecks besserer Spezifizierung vereinigen mit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_M%C3%BChlen_family_(Vogtland) - es könnte noch weitere Familien mit dem Namen geben GerritR (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe die Bilder verschoben und einen Redirect angelegt. Wenn mal eine andere Familie dazukommen sollte, kann man daraus eine Begriffsklärung machen. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Anvilaquarius (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:2 men with other organisms

I wonder why this would be useful. I don't think even just 2 humans with other organisms would be a variable that is reasonable to categorize by. Humans with other organisms would be a reasonable cat but I doubt this one is. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just part of an overall structure and not empty, so no harm here. Josh (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"just part of an overall structure" is not an argument. The overall structure is a problem too. This level of differentiation certainly is. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4 clothed children with 2 clothed men

I wonder why this would be useful. I don't think even just a 4 clothed children with other people would be variables that are reasonable to categorize by. Children with men would maybe be a reasonable cat but I doubt this one is. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This splitting of categories is reaching the point of absurdity. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no harm, this is just one of a standard structure, let it be. Josh (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"just part of an overall structure" is not an argument. The overall structure is a problem too. This level of differentiation certainly is. Not useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water activities

Probably best merged with Category:Activities relating to water Prototyperspective (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ligature "THE"

What is this? Uncategorized. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THEre's an example in the single image in the category. I don't know enough about historical typography to say whether this is something that's common enough to be worth categorizing or if it's a one-off bit of weirdness. Omphalographer (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ligatures are a well known phenomenon and are relatively common. A quick search on the web will reveal this. RSLlGriffith (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 'THE' ligature is unusual in that three letters are involved rather than the more usual two. RSLlGriffith (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this should go in the Discussion tab This place is reserved for other valid reasons. --Allforrous (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Category talk:Ligature "THE" --Allforrous (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from (wanted categories)

See Special:Categories/Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from.

The other day, we noticed that countless Sanborn categories lacked existing parent categories. It appears that some 7000 have a total 3500 red categories. This may appear as a lot, but given the number of map files, this is reasonable. Sanborn produced detailed maps for many US towns for almost a century and Commons has quite a good coverage of them.

I suggest to create the missing categories similar to this one
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably be a good thing to do. However, I don't know whether the redcats all have accurate titles and a script should probably be used to create these cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1799 works in the United Kingdom

Should be 1799 works in Great Britain. Rathfelder (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt seem to exist. Rathfelder (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, you've already commented on it. Thanks for comment. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Badminton photos with watermarks

I don't see any strong reason to keep badminton images with watermarks A1Cafel (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bust of Woodrow Wilson in Poznań

There are three different categories for this single sculpture. I propose that they be merged. Presidentman (talk · contribs) 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other two categories are Category:Thomas Woodrow Wilson by Gutzon Borglum and Category:Woodrow Wilson statue in Poznań. - Presidentman (talk · contribs) 22:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merging of the categories. If there are more than one statue of Woodrow Wilson in Poznań, the name of the sculptor should be in the name of the category.Bärbel Miemietz (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support having the sculptor's name in the category name. Presidentman (talk · contribs) 13:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Facilities

What is the difference between Category:Facilities and Category:Infrastructure? Both seems synonyms to me. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Water pipes for ex. are not facilities. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: But how? I see water pipes as facilities as they are built to serve water to different buildings, thus consistent with the definition of "facility". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange understanding of 'facility' then. As ENWP says, A facility is a place for doing something, or a place that facilitates an activity. Types of facility include:[…] highlighted the part that makes it more clear. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Thanks, but the dictionary I've cited talks about "something designed, built, installed, etc.", which may or may not be a place. The Wikipedia article looks more like an unsourced w:WP:DICDEF to me, which is not useful when defining this term. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the linked articles, telecommunications facility defines the term "facility" as follows:

A fixed, mobile, or transportable structure, including (a) all installed electrical and electronic wiring, cabling, and equipment and (b) all supporting structures, such as utility, ground network, and electrical supporting structures.

A network-provided service to users or the network operating administration.

A transmission pathway and associated equipment.

In a protocol applicable to a data unit, such as a block or frame, an additional item of information or a constraint encoded within the protocol to provide the required control.

A real property entity consisting of one or more of the following: a building, a structure, a utility system, pavement, and underlying land.

Many of the items listed are not really "places". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never understood this term in any other way and if it didn't have its current meaning then there would be a major gap in words, no other word can substitute it. I'm quite confused by that anybody could think "facility" to refer to any kind of infrastructure and it's exhausting to argue about things like this. Authors of medical facility and wiktionary item @Op47, Slowking Man, Atitarev, Widsith, and Ncik: has term "facility" the same meaning as "infrastructure"? Prototyperspective (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The supporting structures there refer only to the local structures at the place location, i.e. in and underneath or around the building. Cambridge Dictionary defines facility as a place, especially including buildings, where a particular activity happens – the things not considered here underlined. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that I understand the argument… "facility" does not refer exclusively to places. The fundamental meaning is of (to use the OED definition) "a service or feature of a specific kind, or a building or establishment that provides such a service". That said, while there is some overlap with the word "infrastructure", I definitely wouldn't consider them synonymous. 2A02:1210:26FF:8200:5873:155F:69F:456A 08:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That definition does not spell it out but a building or establishment are at concrete places (places one can go to which can have geocoordinates, not areas, regions or large networks) and I think that is a defining characteristic for the physical meaning of the word even if the key semantics is about the service-provision. In the case of telecommunications facility, the facility when it comes to networks is about network-provided service, not the physical infrastructure. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and disambiguate. Much like Category:Wallah (below), the word "facilities" has very little meaning on its own; it's generally used as a filler word to mean "place" or "capability" (or occasionally, through the power of euphemism, "toilet"). This isn't a good basis for categorization; the topics of subcategories like Category:Beach facilities or Category:Immigration facilities or Category:Transloading facilities have almost nothing in common with each other beyond a coincidence of how they're worded. Omphalographer (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense and there's a nonsmall number of categories that have the same problem. However, I think the current subcategories all relate to the meaning of facility as a place. A good thing to do may be moving it to e.g. Category:Facility (place) or Category:Facility (building). Is there any subcat that wouldn't fit into that cat? It should be removed even before merging but I couldn't find one. The ones you named are all about the same thing, I'm really very surprised that you also seem to have some strange understanding of that word – all of those three match the described meaning. Basically means facility means building except that it's a bit broader and also includes other physical local structures such as, probably, a telephone booth (telecommunication facility) or waterpark (recreation facility). Prototyperspective (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it instead to another word that also is for buildings and other local physical structures may be better, what about:

Physical structure sites (a network of cables is a physical structure but the scope here is a place where one can go to)
Constructed sites
in German the word I think would be Einrichtung but the best translation for it still is facility

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: It would be great if you explicitly comment on the CFD on Category:Wallah, since closing editors will look at category discussions separately without much connections. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping response: "facility" in English is a very generic "fuzzy category" word. In the broadest sense it just means "place, method, means, for/of doing a thing". (Something for facilitating a task goal etc, you might say) The etymology may help illustrate: via French, from Latin facio, "to do, to make, to produce, to compose" etc., ultimately from Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to do, put, place". Not sure it makes a good category, being so generic. Compare a Category:Objects, Category:Places, Category:Entities. Slowking Man (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wallah

"Wallah" is an Indo-Aryan suffix used to create agent nouns. However, this category categorizes random images showing people whose occupation titles end with "wallah". However, we already have widely-understood English terms for many Indian-English occupation titles ending with "wallah". For example, Category:Rickshaw drivers for "rickshawallah", Category:Tea sellers for "chaiwallah", and so on. So this category is strictly useless. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church of the Protection of the Theotokos (Sosnovka, Ozyorsky District)

It's not really clear what the difference between this category and Category:All Saints church (Sosnovka, Ozyorsky District) is. But one of them should probably be deleted. Although I'm not really sure which. There's no point in having two categories for the same church and images though. Pinging @GennadyL: as the creator of both categories. Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different temples standing close to each other. Therefore, each of them should have its own category, as well as its own article! --GennadyL (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously two churches in this ensemble (one is made of stone and looks good and another is made of wood and almost ruined), and there are different images in each category, so I think that noone can find a reason to delete one of these categories. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ivory Coast

First of all, I apologize for changing the name of a few categories, I didn't realize there were hundreds of them.

Since April 1986, the government declared that Côte d'Ivoire would be its formal name and has since officially refused to recognize any translations from French to other languages in its international dealings. So we have to change the name for all categories that include the name "Ivory Coast".

Like we don't call Birmania anymore, or unlike Costa Rica which has never been translated into "Rich Coast", using the name Costa Rica in its original language promotes consistency in country names, avoiding translations that may lead to confusion. Côte d'Ivoire has an incredible number of different names. Ivory Coast (English), Costa de Marfil (Spanish), Elfenbeinküste (German), Boli Kosta (Basque), Obala Slonovače (Croatian), Ranná Bóga (Irish), Kotu di Bivora (Galician), Bregu i Elefantit (Albanian) and so on.

Many countries (like Canada in English) and international organizations now use "Côte d'Ivoire" in their official communications, helping to establish a standard. -- Zorion^eko 10:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per your argument. I'm not too concerned with how much work it would be to rename these categories and move files, we have tools that help speed up that process. But it also means changing the country templates used in these categories that still use "Ivory Coast" (and don't recognize Côte d'Ivoire) where these parameters are buried deep in various subtemplates most people can't easily get to or may not even have edit rights to.

Maybe COM:VP or COM:VPP would be a better place to have this discussion after all? As this doesn't just involve changing category names. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReneeWrites we had a similar discussion, which, ironically, began with a notable cemetery and memorial site in our country that rarely uses "Heroes' Cemetery"! See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/08#Is renaming categories with an English name to local language names a good idea?. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345 This really has nothing to do with it, none at all. We are talking about a country that is asking for its name to no longer be translated, be standardized and that there is already a consensus at the diplomatic level. We are not asking to change Category:Guinea to Category:Guinée. for example Australia, Canada or UK no longer use Ivory Coast in their communications. Zorion^eko 03:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zorion the logic is the same. As per the latest enwiki discussion, the move was reverted as "no consensus", which implies English-language sources are split over Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast, indicating Ivory Coast is still a common name in majority of English-language sources. While Commons does not necessarily need to follow enwiki guidelines in names of places, there are conflicting claims on how Commons needs to handle such cases. In the discussion I cited here, Broichmore argues the default language of Commons is English, so English should be the preferred language. This standpoint appears to conflict with Bastique's argument below, in which Commons is an international project. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: I think the naming conventions for certain topics depends on one or two things:

Whether the English name is widely recognised for that topic, even if different from other languages. For example, Category:Eiffel Tower for Tour Eiffel.
Whether most languages follow a common name for that topic, even if different from English. For example, Category:Ananas (fruit) for pineapple.

Based on these two factors, I have supported renaming Category:Cristo Redentor (Rio de Janeiro) to the English name, while renaming Category:Ivory Coast to the French name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support — I used to know the country as "Côte d'Ivoire" in English and "কোতদিভোয়ার" in Bengali till 2020, when I was amazed to find that Wikipedia and Commons use "Ivory Coast" in English rather than "Côte d'Ivoire". The Bengali name is the transliteration of the French name, by the way. I don't know much about the country, other than being a West African nation once colonized by the French. So I can't tell whether "Ivory Coast" is more common than "Côte d'Ivoire" in English media. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Half the files on here having to do with the country use "Ivory Coast." So neither seems to be more common, at least not to any meaningful degree. At least sticking to Ivory Coast would be simplier and go along with how other have it. That said, it probably doesn't matter in the long run either way. 99% of the stuff like is just change, or the lack of it, for its own sake. Not because it makes any actual difference to anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Zorian and ReneeWrites, this is the internationally recognized name, even though "Ivory Coast" may still be more common in English, we are not a strictly English project and even other English speaking countries recognize it as "Côte d'Ivoire". Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos of human sexual intercourse

sexual intercoarse 49.197.167.237 11:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — Valid category for videos showing copulation. Commons is not censored, unless it involves juveniles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Village pounds

I think Category:Village pounds, Category:Pinfolds, Category:Pinfolds in the United Kingdom, Category:Pinfolds in England, and Category:Town pounds need some amount of reorganization. They're all generally referring to the same thing of a historic animal pound (Wikidata Q4764963 I think). Village pounds is in the "Village structures in England" category (though I haven't confirmed everything in it is actually in England), which makes it weird that it has a subcategory structure of Pinfolds that has Pinfolds in the United Kingdom which in turn has Pinfolds in England. Then Town Pounds seems to mostly be about historic pounds in New England, though there looks to be one entry there from France. I think all of these probably should be moved into a new hierarchy by location under a new "Historic animal pounds" category or something along those lines. But I'm relatively new to Commons and not really sure what the right organizational structure is. It's my understanding that "pinfold" and "pound" are just synonymous terms, with some slight preferences for one or the other in different locations. PeterCooperJr (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to have a concrete proposal as a starting point, here is the current hierarchy:

Animal shelters
 ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
 └ Animal shelters by location
    ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
    └ Animal shelters by country
       ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
       └ Animal shelters in the United Kingdom
          ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
          └ Animal pounds in the United Kingdom
             ├ Animal pounds in England
             │  └ (Categories for specific localities)
             └ Animal pounds in Wales
Enclosures
 ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
 ├ Enclosures (agriculture)
 │  ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
 │  └ Village pounds
 │     ├ (Categories for specific localities)
 │     └ Pinfolds
 │        └ Pinfolds in the United Kingdom
 │           ├ (Categories for specific localities)
 │           └ Pinfolds in England
 │              └ (Categories for specific localities)
 └ Town pounds
    └ (Categories for specific localities)

And here's a proposed new structure:

Enclosures (agriculture)
 ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
 └ Historic animal pounds
    ├ Animal pounds in the United Kingdom
    │  ├ Animal pounds in England
    │  │  └ (Categories for specific localities)
    │  └ Animal pounds in Wales
    └ Animal pounds in the United States
       └ (Categories for specific localities)

Which would be implemented using these specific changes:

Create new Category:Historic animal pounds, with parent category Category:Enclosures (agriculture).
Update Wikidata Q4764963 to reference that new category instead of "Village pounds".
Category:Animal pounds in the United Kingdom: remove parent category Category:Animal shelters in the United Kingdom, add parent categories Category:Historic animal pounds and Category:Agricultural buildings in the United Kingdom
Create new category Category:Animal pounds in the United States, with parent category Category:Historic animal pounds
Category:Pinfolds in England: Move child categories and files to be in Category:Animal pounds in England (Double-checking that they're all actually in England) instead; then replace the category with redirect to Category:Animal pounds in England
Category:Pinfolds in the United Kingdom: Move the couple remaining child categories to be under Category:Animal pounds in England, then replace the category with redirect to Category:Animal pounds in the United Kingdom
Category:Pinfolds: Recategorize images based on their respective location (to Category:Animal pounds in England or Category:Animal pounds in the United States, then replace the category with redirect to Category:Historic animal pounds
Category:Village pounds: Move child categories and files to be in Category:Animal pounds in England (Double-checking that they're all actually in England) instead; then replace the category with redirect to Category:Historic animal pounds
Category:Town pounds: Move child categories and files to be in Category:Animal pounds in the United States (or another locality-based category as applicable), then replace the category with redirect to Category:Historic animal pounds

Again, this is all just intended to be a starting point. But as far as I can tell, "Town pounds", "Village pounds", and "Pinfolds" are all the same exact thing, and I think they should be categorized similarly. I could see an argument for having more categories which are each named more based on what they're locally called in each region, but it should be easy for one to find them in a similar-looking place, and right now they're not. --PeterCooperJr (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like pinfold, I've never heard it used for anything other than animals, while you definitely get cars in some pounds. So though I've no great objection to some sort of reorganisation, but maybe with pinfolds as the name for animal pounds. Or if this is one of those English v American English things, maybe we use pounds in the US and Pinfolds in England? WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the US and have only heard the term pounds for these historic structures, though it also seems to be the preferred term in some parts of England. There was some discussion on the OpenStreetMap wiki on the right term to use for mapping these, which included this color-coded query of the terms that have been used, showing a pretty clear regional distinction. The term "pound" seemed to be the more general term (and is what's currently used in the Wikidata term for whatever that's worth). I have no particular objection to using "pinfold" instead if that's the more generic term, or in keeping them both separate if keeping them distinct is useful. I'm far from being an expert on the subject. Right now, there are pounds labeled as pinfolds and pinfolds labeled as pounds, and I think they're just all really trying to say the same thing. PeterCooperJr (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than choosing between "pound" and "pinfold", would including both in the category names make more sense (at least for the UK where both terms are used)? Something along the lines of

Enclosures (agriculture)
 ├ (Various other categories not relevant to discussion)
 └ Historic animal pounds and pinfolds
    ├ Animal pounds and pinfolds in the United Kingdom
    │  ├ Animal pounds and pinfolds in England
    │  │  └ (Categories for specific localities)
    │  └ Animal pounds and pinfolds in Wales
    └ Animal pounds in the United States
       └ (Categories for specific localities)

? --PeterCooperJr (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young people

I had recreated this category for various reasons:

To group categories like Category:Children, Category:Young adults, Category:Young musicians and Category:Young and old people.
To provide categories for people who look young but are hard to guess whether they are children, teenagers or adults since the transition from adolescence to adulthood is gradual and not always apparent.
To have a people equivalent of the category Category:Youth, similar to Category:Babies/Category:Infancy, Category:Children/Category:Childhood, Category:Teenagers/Category:Adolescence, Category:Old people/Category:Human old age and so on.

Joshbaumgartner has moved the original categories to Category:Young adults since the categories began to cover only young adults at that point, excluding children and teenagers. A 2010 discussion defined "young people" as adults aged between 18 and 40. Anyway, this CFD is due to Josh objecting to my recreation of the categories, since I'm unable to explain the utility of such categories to him. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly consider children and adolescents "young people", and presuming we are doing this sort of categorization by age contingent at all (which I don't necessarily support), everything Sbb1413 says here sounds reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sea and river deities

Category combining the topics "sea deities" and "river deities", something discouraged according to the Commons category policies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Water deities. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Channelised rivers and streams

What are the differences between Category:Channelised rivers and streams and Category:Channelized rivers, other than the spelling difference of "channeli(s/z)ed" and the inclusion of "and streams"? Streams are usually included with rivers in river categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to merging the two categories. Thanks. Moreau1 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgium by century

Belgium didnt exist until 1830. Rathfelder (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nevertheless this is a valid and systematically useful, proper metacat. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its misleading. In the 16th & 17th century it was the Habsburg Netherlands in the 18th century the Southern Netherlands. Rathfelder (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all:

The only category which is nominated here for discussion is the metacat Category:Belgium by century, obviously nothing else. And there should not be any doubt about keeping it.
If you believe that there should be additional categories for certain centuries in Habsburg Netherlands, than feel free to create it as an additional category tree for those users who need it and who do know the historical borders and the historical entities' names.

But despite that please do not create a mess by trying to destroy well-established category trees and changing the category system into a history book. That's what we have wikipedia articles for, e.g. History of Belgium. Regular commons users do need a clear and systematic structure both for categorizing as well as for finding media. And also, I'm quite sure about this, regular users do know that today's countries did not always exist in the past. Present-day and widely known administrative borders, though, are a clear, distinct and certainly not misleading means of reliable categorisation and even for navigation between categories, even for past periods. Don't break this up! Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Design drawings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

what is a design drawing and what is meant here. The category contains a broad sujet variety. I do not see, what they have in common Oursana (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is an issue here. I see portrait, landscape, allegorical, mythological, and religious drawings, plus more. Some of them seem like they could be categorized as design drawings (for example, this one, this one, and this one). -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are all DRAWINGs in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam and almost all explicitely declared to be : "Objecttype: tekening ontwerp". (Objecttype Drawing, design (for ....). That is because they are made as designs /concepts /technical steps for printed matter, for other paintings or book illustrations. Some of them even have a grid that makes it obvious that they where made to be used in a reproduction process. In this sense they are preliminary works (not standalone studies and not autonomous drawings). It is by nature thematically a mixed class, because it is not a category by depicted subject. It can and may hold a lot of subcategories. Like designs for book covers, for book titles, for book illustrations, for posters, for architecture, furniture, jewelry ... etc. This cat holds large subcategories of book designs and sketches for book illustrations. What would be the suggested alternative name for a category to hold those types of drawings? There might be a few cases of doubt or mistake but I don't see a valid reason to discuss or to delete this group as a whole. I don't understand the action of nominating this cat. I repeat it is not a cat by subject themes but by objectype. This answers both questions ... both looking for homogenous depicted subject matter in the wrong place. These drawings are ususally, or should ideally be, sorted by subject matter into other existing cats as well. Peli (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peli. What about "Drawings for printing(s)", in German we have "Druckvorlage".

Subcat Architectural designs in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam doesn't fit to this meaning. Here I understand design drawings but they are not meant for printingOursana (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant as a cat by object type by museum. It is intentionally broad because first level down from drawings in RMA to contain more specific subcats like technical drawings / drafts / illustrations for book designs, furniture designs, poster designs, garden designs, etc. It is a work in progress. It does not yet have a cat voor "Voorstudie", which are understood as peliminary drawings for paintings, murals and stained glass etc. The funny thing is that there are a lot of possible translations voor Ontwerp Ontwerptekening Ontwerpschets. But the Städel has not one "Druckvorlage", yet it has over hundred times Zeichnungen als "Entwurf". So does the MET, it has almost 400 hits in "design+drawing". Not many of them qualify as Drückentwurf. I propose to keep the category name unchanged but write a few lines of explanation as a caption, also for the sebcats. I was able to add 1500 new files and removed 200 that where there by mistake. Peli (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, I am fine, when you make some explantiona. Perhaps Architectural designs in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam shouldn't stay here, because the criterion preparation for print does not apply here.Oursana (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jupiter in art

Rename Category:Jupiter in art to Category:Jupiter (planet) in art , as the name "Jupiter" may refer either to the planet or to the Roman god. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the category for the planet should have the name suggested. This category could then be a dab cat, including Category:Jupiter (planet) in art and Category:Iupiter in art. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree: Jupiter (planet) in art. --A. Wagner (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 and A. Wagner: I have also tagged Category:Mercury in art, Category:Saturn in art and Category:Uranus in art, as they are similarly ambiguous. In particular, Category:Mercury in art can also refer to the element Hg, other than the planet or the Roman god. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: Does Commons have any media for the element in art? -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do! File:Ripley alchemical scroll - Philosophical mercury in the tree of life draws out a child - Leonard Smethley, Princeton University Library, 1624.jpg, for instance. It's "philosophical mercury", though, which has little relation to the actual element... perhaps that's even a fourth category. Omphalographer (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per parent category especially given as noted the god can have art. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Template WikiProject Svenska Grillplatser

This category consists of templates that are all intended for one category page each, save the first one. Why create templates? Why not just paste the content directly on the category pages? As for the content in question, I don't see how it is relevant on Commons. I have tried to talk to Salgo60 about it on his talk page, but it appears I failed to make myself understood, unless I was simply ignored. Sinigh (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used on more places depends on how the usage will be the basic design idea is to follow the DRY pattern don't repeat yourself (Q1242407) and make it easier to maintain....

status today is that I add 99% av all Swedish BBQ pictures so maybe there is better ways to get this going ;-)

Salgo60 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally a good idea to add category descriptions. Maybe Template:WikiProject Svenska Grillplatser could be made to work for all of them? Would also simplify improving them. OTH Template:WikiProject Svenska Grillplatser Järfälla is used on multiple categories.

As far as Category:Template WikiProject Svenska Grillplatser is directly concerned, I think the standard format would be Category:WikiProject Svenska Grillplatser templates or at least the plural form.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes the naming is a mess and I feel we have this technical debt not supporting more languages is the major problem...

2) My first thought was that we as a community could make it easier to find more objects and then have category links on the page ....

2-1) my latest test is using Mapillary and tried getting that community to add picture segmentation for BBQ places ;-) link negative answer right now

2-2) Lesson learned is that Wikidata queries with a "short url" is a mess as you have to rewrite the query all the time it would be better to also have a template for SPARQL queries where you just add the "changing object" as a parameter or even better if you could "read" the parameter from the commons category... would be magic and easy to maintain...

3) I have also used #20 OSM Notes in Wikidata (task in swedish) to get locations confirmed by OSM editors - example SPARQL finding WD objects with a ref to OSM annotations OSM Note File (Q25824045)

Salgo60 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category description is a brief introduction to or clarification of the topic, or even less than that, as Commons:Categories puts it: "A short description text that explains what should be in the category, if the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own." It usually isn't 15 bullet points with resources for the Wikiproject maintaining the topic of the category. Commons is a media repository. Sinigh (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok what is the problem adding things to the page I use the template Template:Wikidata/FamilyTree a lot see Categories below Category:SBL släktartiklar and I think its good for navigating inside commons and also find persons in the family tree that lacks pictures... All Trees are from a quality Swedish source Dictionary of Swedish National Biography (Q379406) - Salgo60 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you are well aware that we both already know, there is nothing wrong with "adding things to the page" per se. The family trees are great: relevant category and/or Wikidata links in a collapsible template. The grillplats type templates only do a little bit of that, but mostly they just list a bunch of things that are largely irrelevant to people who access a media repository. Sinigh (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me Wikicomkmons is used by people uploading pictures and my templates is to make it more easy to find new fireplaces that needs a picture - Salgo60 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronistic categories

Category:18th-century political cartoons of the United Kingdom

UK didnt exist until 1801. Should be cartoons of Great Britain. Rathfelder (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we must do this kind of hyperaccuracy, please also CfD the parent categories ("Politics of the UK in the 18th century", "International relations of the UK in the 1710s" etc), but do not forget to correctly link all categories with each other so that people are able to navigate seamlessly. --Enyavar (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly should do that, but its quite a big job. Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support there's no such thing as hyperaccuracy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relations of the United Kingdom and the United States in the 18th century

UK did not exist in the 1770s Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of the United Kingdom in the 1770s

UK did not exist in the 1770s Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of the United Kingdom in the 1710s

UK did not exist in the 1770s Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of the United Kingdom in the 1780s

UK did not exist in the 1770s Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of the United Kingdom in the 1760s

CAtegory:Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom_in_the_1790s

UK did not exist in the 1770s Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demonstrations and protests in the United Kingdom in the 18th century

UK did not exist in the 1770s Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has already been discussed ad nauseum in multiple other locations. It's the same as the United States/Germany/etc. in the 1660s, etc. Yes, the political entity didn't exist, but the geographical entity did, and we want to be able to navigate through historical categories. Hyperaccuracy (yes, that's a thing; consider shoreline measurement) can get prohibitively complicated in some cases. That said, if you want to go through and accurate subcategorize the files by constituent country (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or Ireland) to be more accurate, I think that would be fabulous; I just found that too time-consuming myself. Alternatively, while United Kung and Great Britain are not completely interchangeable, in many cases it's 'close enough,' so I wouldn't oppose renaming the categories. BUT -- please retain/create redirects for United Kingdom -> Great Britain! Partly for relatively seamless navigation and partly because some templates don't account for change in 1801. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the UK should be an exception to the rule yo eliminate anachronistic categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"... the geographical entity did [exist]" - I must respectfully disagree. The UK is a political construct, not a geographic construct; the same is true for the Kingdom of Great Britain: neither polity is co-terminous with the island of Great Britain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1798 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s. Note: Category:1795 in the United Kingdom redirects to Category:1795 in Great Britain, so some work on this has already been done. Personally, I would prefer "Kingdom of Great Britain" to distinguish the polity from the island. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1799 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1797 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1797 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1797 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1797 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1796 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1794 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1793 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1792 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1792 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1792 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1792 in the United Kingdom

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1620s

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1620s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1620s

UK did not exist in the 1790s Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1620s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1630s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1640s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1650s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1660s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1660s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1660s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1660s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1670s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom in the 1680s

UK did not exist in the 17th century Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada in the 16th century

Canada did not exist before the 19th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge & Redirect to Category:North America in the 16th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these allegedly "anachronistic" categories were discussed many times, many years ago, so proposals like this are reinventing the wheel. There's even the Wiki article 16th century in Canada interconnected with this category so its purpose is quite obvious. It also links to ten other sister projects. --Orijentolog (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went diwn the rabbit hole and ended up in Category:Hochelaga National Historic Site. Neither Jacques Cartier nor the native Iroquis would have recognised the place as "Canada". It's just presentism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't a discussion here. I'm well aware that Germany in the 13th century BC is strictly politically & historically incorrect, but it actually stands for today's borders and helps us navigate space & time. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "but" part is not a valid objection. The essence of the matter is that this, and other such categories, are "..strictly politically & historically incorrect.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please add a notice about "Canada" in the category name refers to Canada in 2024.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada in the 15th century

Canada did not exist before the 19th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: Canada was not a political entity until 1967, but the name had currency for at least a century before that. And I cannot imagine what else we would better call a category for this region in that period, and cannot see any advantage in failing to keep such material in a category. Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Laurel Lodged and Rathfelder: , who have nominated similar categories for deletion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think each place needs its own consideration. My impression is that people talked and wrote about Canada long before 1867. Obvious question to which I dont know the answer is how distinct was what is now Canada from the rest of North America in the 15th or 16th century? Rathfelder (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge & Redirect to Category:North America in the 15th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the category has some content. Just add a noticed that "Canada" in the category name refers to Canada in 2024.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada in the 10th century

Canada did not exist before the 19th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge & Redirect to Category:North America in the 10th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why so much hate? This type of categories exists for every country. E.g. Slovenia in the 5th century BC when it became independant in 1991 or Czechia in the 2nd century BC when it was created in 1993. Also, Lower and Upper Canada existed before the 19th century, not even talking about the use of the name Canada for a territory since 1534. --Birdie (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hate Canada. Some of my best friends are Canadian. I do, however, have a problem with ahistorical, anachronistic categorisations that are just examples of presentism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content seems to be from Central Panama.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canada in the 1st millennium

Canada did not exist before the 19th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge & Redirect to Category:North America in the 1st millennium. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge & Redirect Per the nominator and Laurel Lodged. The "country X in the 1st millennium" thing is just an exercise in revisionist pedantry. The same goes for most of the sub-categories. Like with Category:Canada in the 1st century There's absolutely no reason to have 5 essentially empty categories just for one image of a bust of Emperor Tiberius. Especially since it wasn't created in Canada to begin with. It's totally ridiculous to have a category structure that insinuates something made in ancient Rome has anything to do with, or was created in, Canada. Let alone Canada in the 1st century. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT for relevant archeological cultures. Any (sub)category based on imported art is redundant, as I explained here. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:India in the 1st millennium

Although India as a geographic region has existed long before human history, the main topic of this category is Category:India (a sovereign state) instead of Category:Indian subcontinent (the geographic region). There was no political entity named "India" or "Bharat(a)" until the 18th century, when Category:British India was established. It was partitioned in 1947 into two countries: Category:India and Category:Pakistan. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons ain't strictly historic, these categories follow current borders. We also have Germany in the 38th century BC and tons of similar categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Sbb1413. There's already a category for the Chalukya Empire, which is good enough IMO. There's no reason to take things to that level when you only have a single category full of single subcats full of more single subcats Etc. Etc. though. It's just way to granular and doesn't help people find what their looking for. Compare that to Category:India in the 7th century which is totally justified IMO because there's actually media and sub-categories on here having to do with it. At this point your just creating categories to fill in red links though. Which isn't what they exist for. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I didn't fill it up, but now it's done. It contains 12 subcategories. It's also interconnected with six Wiki projects so voting for deletion is nonsensical. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Indian subcontinent in the 1st millennium. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a practical solution because India would be an exception among many. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. There doesn't seem to be other "subcontinent by time period" categories though. But then leaving the category as is isn't a great solution either. So at the end of the day this might be something that needs a wider discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"India would be an exception among many": India the present sovereign state? What does "among many" mean - the other sovereign states on the subcontinent that also did not exist in the 1st millennium? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: Yes, Category:India refers to the present sovereign state, which was established in 1947 after the partition of Category:British India into two countries. Any references to "India" before 1947 is either to Category:British India or to the Category:Indian subcontinent. For the sake of consistency, the categories of "India" before 1947 should use "Indian subcontinent" or "British India", depending on the chronology. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: I'm speaking of many years, many decades, many centuries, and many countries. There are thousands of such chronological categories arranged by the contemporary borders. This discussion is "reinventing wheel". --Orijentolog (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give Orijentolog the benefit of the doubt even though they totally don't deserve it, I can kind of see the usefulness of having the distinction in some instances. Like no one really considers the Satavahana dynasty to be from Nepal even if they had some minor dealings there. So it seems a little weird to include Category:Satavahana in a main category for the subcontinent. I don't think doing it this way is necessarily the solution either though. It's already in a lot of other categories that better describe the situation without need to be in Category:Andhra Pradesh in the 1st century, which is a child category of this one and has the same problem as there was no Andhra Pradesh at that point. At the end of the day the only solution is probably just to get rid of both categories and come up with a more general one or just don't and not sub-categorize things like Category:Satavahana that way to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: that particular case with Satavahana and Andhra Pradesh in the 1st century is completely unnecessary and I'm for deletion, generally I strongly favor keeping former countries and centuries strictly separate. Sometimes a century can be fit under a former country, and sometimes former country under a century. So regardless of the path chosen, there will be issues with imprecision, inconsistency, or even circular categorization. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of "reinventing the wheel"; the goal is to destroy the wheel. All sub-categories purporting to belong to a non-existent state are ahistorical, anachronistic and instances of presentism; they need to be unraveled back to their core tribes / dynasties / states for their respective time periods. Yes, it's a big job but better than letting these errors persist and multiply. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose such an idea. The categories of former states are a different categorization tree. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What former states do you mean? I'm talking about States that did not exist at that time period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clear: There should be an undisrupted category tree according to today's countries/states (for „regular“ commons users concerning about sorting and easily finding media in whatsoever topic by location and period) – and, if wanted, another additional category tree referring to historical resp. geographical entities (for users specifically and primarily interested in history and historical/geographical entities, subordinately in other topics). --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to admit there's a point where it can and does become historical whitewashing and/or revisionism. In this particular case Category:Countries by millennium only has 13 categories, out of what like 200 countries that currently exist? And most of those seems to have been created by Orijentolog. So it's clearly not a widely accepted or practiced thing on here. At least not outside of Orijentolog's personal editing performances.

You can say this is useful to "users specifically and primarily interested in history" or whatever. But it clearly isn't. Otherwise the categories would have been created years ago for most countries and by multiple users. Not mainly by one person in the last few months for a couple of countries that they happen to have a personal interest in. No one else seems to care about it or thinks it's a good way to categorize things outside of Orijentolog though. Although it's purely revisionist pedantry regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indeed not sure if we need the millenium category level. My comment refers to the previously presented idea to „destroy“ the well-established category tree based on today's countries/states for certain historical periods. I strongly oppose that. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK. Not to speak for Laurel Lodged but I assume they mainly meant it in relation to the category being discussed. If you look through something like Category:Canada in the 1st millennium it and the sub-categories seem to have similar issues though. For instance File:Emperor Tiberius - Royal Ontario Museum - DSC09793.JPG is in a sub-category for Canada in the 1st century when Canada didn't exist at that point and the bust wasn't created in Canada to begin with anyway. The same goes for the sub-categories and images in Category:Singapore by millennium, Etc. Etc. So the whole thing really needs to go or at least be massively cut back. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 & Kleeblatt187: Just for the record, the category Works in India by millennium was opened 11 years ago, and en:Category:Millennia in India almost 14 years ago. Considering we also have categories of India by century, it was a logical and practical idea for me to open India by millennium also, as parent categories. It helps both local and interwiki navigation. Adamant1's claim that it is "not a widely accepted or practiced thing on here" actually refers to flawed or impartial categorization. There are some chronological categories unique only for Germany, thanks to AnRo0002 & Triplec85, and the fact that all other countries don't have it ain't an argument for deletion. In fact, it should be a role model for all other countries. The same is with countries with categories by millennium. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: you're 100% correct about the case of File:Emperor Tiberius - Royal Ontario Museum - DSC09793.JPG. The idea of creating chronological categories based on imported art is nonsensical, not to use a harsher word. I remember well such flaws in recent years, like Birdie's edit which removed the country of origin (Iran) and replaced it with the city of current location (Paris). Truly bizarre. IMHO artworks should have the country of origin for chronological categories and nothing more. One example: the Guennol Lioness statue was kept in New York City, which implies having New York City in the 3rd millennium BC, but then in 2007 it was sold to private collector Alastair Martin. It implies deleting the New York City category, and opening a new for... I don't know. We can only make a phone call: "Hello Mr. Martin, would you tell us where the vault with your artworks is? California, or Kentucky? I need to open a new Commons category!" In other words, a ridiculously impractical idea. On the other hand, it is useful to have chronological categories of current states for archaeological sites that originated there. If all those categories of Canada and Singapore are based on imported artworks, I'm in favor of deletion, but India is a different case. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Header 3

Category:Works from Europe

Should merge into Category:Works in Europe. The intended distinction does not work. Its confusing even for native English speakers. All the subcategories should merge too. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:

Keep this distinction, no matter how confusing it might be. Category:Works in Europe includes European or foreign works displayed in Europe, while Category:Works from Europe includes European works displayed in Europe or elsewhere. Both categories can come under Category:Works of Europe. This is the convention Joshbaumgartner and others have followed. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For native English speakers, Category:European works may sound better than Category:Works from Europe. However, we rarely follow the "[region]-ian [topic]" format in Commons, instead following "[topic] [preposition] [region]" most of the time, while the former is followed more commonly in Wikipedia categories. People are starting to unlearn prepositions nowadays. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that most editors do not understand the difference and it is not used as intended. Rathfelder (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: I think having {{Mbox}}es on such categories is better than consolidating them. The hatnote will show if there are different prepositions for the same topic and country, and it will be integrated with the {{Topic by country}} series of templates. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if many editors read hatnotes. Changing from prepositions to adjectives would work better. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would not work as well as you might think. I've gone down that road in the past and the more one gets into working with that format, the more problems start to crop up. It's a mess. Just a couple of the issues that come to mind from that exercise:

Country adjectives are often more ambiguous and less standardized than country proper names. Most do not have any kind of official adjectival form, especially non-English speaking countries, but even in English, would it be 'American works' or 'United States works'? That's just the tip of the iceberg. For many countries, there is no adjectival form that works so we just end up with the proper name as the adjective and it is clumsy ('Democratic Republic of the Congo works', anyone?). This causes frustration in users who cannot readily find the country they seek in a list.
Adjectival forms offer no information to the user on what the nature of the relationship is between the topic and the country. What does 'German works' mean? Was the work made in Germany, by a German, is it a German style, is it in Germany, does Germany own it, all or any of the above? We can start applying hyphenated extensions, but it gets clumsy as well: 'German-made works', 'German-owned works', 'German-based works', 'German-origin works', etc.

That's just a couple of things that come readily to mind based on earlier experiences with this approach.

Much better to leave countries in their proper name form and use prepositions to describe the relationship whenever possible. 13:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC) Josh (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: I mostly agree with you. I mentioned hatnotes (i.e. {{Mbox}}es) in my last comment, and if there are different preposition for a given "topic" and "country" (city/constituent/continent/country/region), then hatnotes for prepositions will be shown. I've created such a hatnote at {{Topic by country/hatnote}} for demonstration. I feel sad that even native speakers have issues with prepositions, and my native language Bengali uses postpositions instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 That hatnote makes perfect sense to me. I do sympathize with @Rathfelder that hatnotes are probably read and considered less than some of us would like to think, so they are not a cure-all, but they are still a good tool to help people understand how things are set up and how best to find what they are looking for.

I am not familiar with Bengali, but appreciate that there is a great amount of variety in how language can be structured, as I have found in the few languages I am familiar with. Josh (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Democratic satire

Maybe clearer if renamed Russian satire. [2] Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:East Slavic literature

has a category cycle East Slavic literature → Ukrainian-language literature; please fix this and also see ENWP Prototyperspective (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Boldly do it — No discussion should be needed for such a trivial thing. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay what is the solution and please also implement it on Wikipedia which has Church Slavonic literature, Russian literature, Ukrainian literature set on it. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tudor crown in the royal standards of the United Kingdom

I suggest this category is deleted as there aren't actually any Tudor crowns in the royal standards. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sieverts kabelverk

should the company have the bussinessman category Max Sievert or the other way around? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yeghipatrush Church

Delete. There are two churches in Yeghipatrush. Kareyac (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gavit of Yeghipatrush Church

Delete. There are two churches in Yeghipatrush. Kareyac (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khatchkar in Gavit of Yeghipatrush Church 2.40/3.1.2

Delete. There are two churches in Yeghipatrush. Kareyac (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Bukovec (Myjava District)

empty category Akul59 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hélène De Reuse

Empty category (except for infobox and link to creator template) and not likely to be filled as copyright doesn't expire till 2050. Mbch331 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in the meantime, there is a file.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by William Lawrence by number

All of the subcategories only contain a single picture. This doesn't feel like a pattern we should be continuing to use. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is not a useful or appropriate pattern of categorization. These identifiers would be better represented in structured data. Omphalographer (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this could work out.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men of

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be merged into cats including Category:Men by location? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this should be deleted anyway as the resulting category redirect (if any) won't be useful for end users, and the category Category:Women of has been speedied. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to imagine any purpose it serves. If it's just for the category prefix, we have a perfectly good prefix search Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Men_of. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective and Jmabel: After nominating this discussion, I found that this category is the byproduct of {{Men by country}}, which is (in many cases) superseded by {{Topic of country}} with |1= set as "men". I have just noticed that Prototyperspective has reverted some of my replacements of this template, so it is better deleting this category first before replacing the template. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember reverting this so it probably had some other reason and it would be useful if you linked the diff. Maybe it was one of the templates that caused self-categorization. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senior studies

Although the category description says this is about education by old people (aka "senior citizens"), the otherwise ambiguous category title may also refer to Category:Gerontology, the study of old age. Maybe Category:Senior education is a better name for this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Double Ten Day

This appears to be a duplicate of Category:National Day of the Republic of China. The Wikipedia article says: "The National Day of the Republic of China, also referred to as Double Ten Day or...". So, they both are the same. Should they be merged?--125.230.84.199 09:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mortality rates

Most files about death rates are only in Category:Death statistics and its subcats like the OWID subcat; what to do about this cat, can somebody populate it or should it be upmerged somehow or is there anything else that should be done...e.g. the parent cat seems like a major concept but it not linked to any Wikidata item. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerging to Category:Death statistics sounds good to me. And Category:Mortality rate maps can be upmerged to Category:Death maps. And so on. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the parent category to "mortality rates" would be confusing. I don't think it's necessarily a problem when all files aren't subcategorized yet. (as in any other category).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear as to what you are saying. Are you saying we should keep Category:Mortality rates? I may not have been clear in my previous reply. "Upmerging" is not a common word, not does it necessarily have a clear meaning. I think Category:Mortality rates should be eliminated and its contents would be under Category:Death statistics. Category:Mortality rate maps could also be eliminated, and its contents would be put under Category:Death maps. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the infobox with d:Q58702 shouldn't be on Category:Death statistics.

I don't think it's problematic to keep Category:Mortality rates
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boys wearing T-shirts or shorts in winter

An intersectional category, combining Category:Boys wearing T-shirts in winter and Category:Boys wearing shorts in winter. If a boy is wearing both in winter, he can belong to the two aforementioned categories instead of this one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Curry

Questions about definitions and category structure. Current category structure (shortened):

Curry
- Curry by country
- Curry dishes
- Curry and rice
- Indian/Japanese/Thai Curry
- Curry paste
- Curry (spice)
  - Curry powder
  - Curry ketchup
    - Currywurst

What is the difference between Curry, Curry (spice) and Curry powder?
Are Curry dishes, Curry and rice, Indian/Japanese/Thai Curry and Curry paste not made of Curry (spice) or even Curry powder?
1. If they indeed are: should these categories not be subcategories of Curry (spice) or Curry powder?
What are the differences between Indian/Japanese/Thai Curry? Are they curry dishes, different mixes of curry powder or something else?
Why is Curry ketchup a child of Curry (spice)?
Why is Currywurst a child of Curry ketchup?

JopkeB (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fog or mist

Another intersectional category of little utility, and its subcats are just Category:Fog and Category:Mist (visible atmospheric water). The latter was called simply Category:Mist before adding the unnecessary disambiguation "(visible atmospheric water)". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you easily spot the difference between the two? Those are two different subclasses of the same thing, probably often combined. I'm just not sure it's intersectional and should be removed. As for mist, the cat should be moved to the cat that is currently a redirect. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is an essay, Commons:Intersectional categories states a valid point: The idea is that if a user is looking for one of the subject topics, they are best served by delivering them directly to that category. The idea that Category:Trucks and buses would permit a user to find both topics in a single convenient place is moot, as that user would still in the end need to navigate to both Category:Trucks and Category:Buses to see content of both topics. That is, if someone is looking for either Category:Fog or Category:Mist, separate categories are more useful for them than Category:Fog or mist, no matter how similar the weather phenomena are. I myself can combine fog, haze, and mist as Category:Fog, haze, or mist, because many people cannot distinguish between these weather phenomena. However, these categories are not useful for people who are looking for either fog, haze, or mist. You can use Category:Unidentified weather phenomena for such cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Category:Trucks and buses would permit a user to find both topics in a single convenient place is moot, as that user would still in the end need to navigate to both Category:Trucks and Category:Buses Good point and thanks for bringing that up – I think that part needs to be revisited since the user would not still "need to navigate to both [subcategories]" in many cases: one can also use the deepcategory search operator, clicking on More in top right->Deepcat🖼️ to view a wall of images/videos of files in both (or more) categories. However, it doesn't work here in this case because these category branches are too large (a problem until at least phab:T376440 is solved and it should low deeper branches once one reached the bottom).
Category:Visible aerosol formations near surface or similar is a singular-subject valid category above both. The name could probably be improved (e.g. "Category:Near-surface visible atmospheric aerosols"). I wasn't sure about what to do here earlier if anything but now I think the best solution would be to Move (leaving a redirect) this cat to such a title/scope.
These categories are also useful for these people since they can use it to find the relevant subcat or at least they don't cause any issues to them. The unidentified weather phenomena cat doesn't exist, maybe you meant to link something else?

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this idea. I'm now quite busy in real life, so I'll revisit it soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snowy roads

What are the main differences between Category:Icy roads, Category:Roads with snow, and Category:Snowy roads? I understand that Category:Ice roads are "frozen, human-made structures on the surface of bays, rivers, lakes, or seas in the far north", while Category:Icy roads are "normal roads on land with icy surface". So what about Category:Roads with snow and Category:Snowy roads? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe roads that are black, but surrounded by snow as opposed to white roads? Not that it's clear from the category descriptions nor content of either.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization might hint to that: one is in Category:Roads by condition, the other Category:Roads by surface.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia images of commercial logos

What is this category for? "Commercial logos" means that the logos in this category are non-free, so Commons cannot host them, but this category has only contained one file (of a logo that falls under {{PD-logo}}) since its creation Nutshinou ^Talk! 20:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nutshinou:

"Commercial logos" means that the logos in this category are non-free, so Commons cannot host them

Actually, we allow commercial logos in Commons as long as the logos are free of copyright restrictions, see COM:L. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete confusing, if they are on Wikipedia they won't be in this category on Commons and if they are on Commons they won't be Wikipedia images. I don't know if there is a category for images moved from Wikipedia (I can't find it) but I'm not sure we need one for commercial logos however they may be something commonly moved here if the copyright owner cosents but even still I can't see how its that useful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century gallery pages by year

these each just contain a very very small number of random unrepresentative useless largely-irrelevant images and these pages are as of now misleading and not useful Prototyperspective (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue — You should use COM:DR for this instead of CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok makes sense but how can I select all gallery pages in this cat? Moreover, I think when DRing all pages in a cat it makes sense to also put the cat into CfD. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not necessarily, as the arguments for the category is different from the pages or files in the category.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fronti nulla fides

Uncategorised and not really defining. Rathfelder (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "mottos"? More for that can be found: Special:Search/Fronti nulla fides.

The Wikidata item it's currently connected with and the resulting infobox seem unrelated (work by G. Bruno) and doesn't have any content at Commons.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje this merge seems to be problematic.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Enhancing999, apologies for the late reply. Maybe ad the images to the Category:Latin mottos? Lotje (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. The connection at Wikidata should be fixed.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out the infobox. I guess we can close this.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Logos zgh

Should the category be moved to something like Category:Berber-language logos to be in harmony with Category:Logos by language? Nutshinou ^Talk! 13:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but I'm not sure that's the preferred ethnonym. Omphalographer (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public transport buses in the United Kingdom

Genuinely, what is the point of this category? All but a handful of every UK bus categorised under the 'Buses in xxx' regional categories are arguably 'public transport buses'. Creating categories such as, say, 'Public transport buses in Kingston upon Hull' would in my opinion feel very redundant.

As MTaylor848 says on the category talk page, this category is severely overcrowded. I'm not sure if many people have used this category since Ultra7 left, so maybe its time to consider a deletion, redirect or some other way of breaking down this category? Hullian111 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Buses are, by definition, motorized public transport road vehicles. Maybe this category refers to publicly-owned buses as opposed to private ones. If so, this category should be moved to Category:Public buses in the United Kingdom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the only publicly-owned buses (after 1986, mind) belong to the handful of municipally-owned operators, franchised bus schemes, i.e. the Bee Network and the Liverpool City Region's Metro network, or the state-owned Translink of Northern Ireland. The other buses, i.e. those operated Stagecoach, Arriva, First and Go-Ahead, as well as regional independents, are privately-owned. Not to mention, Category:Private buses in the United Kingdom already exists for 'private hire vehicles or private services' in a similar way to this category. Its a difficult one, isn't it? Hullian111 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia-StammtischTour 2022

Kategorie bitte löschen, der Inhalt befindet sich inzwischen in der korrekten Kategorie Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 08:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drosera dilatato-petiolaris

Should this be renamed to Drosera dilatatopetiolaris? That is the correct spelling and currently some of the links on the templates are broken because they point to the hyphenated version, which doesn't exist everywhere. Yummifruitbat (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it shoud be renamed to Drosera dilatatopetiolaris. The botanical code § 60.11. states: "The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen". The original spelling was 'dilatato-petiolaris', and the correction has been done by IPNI and other databases. --Thiotrix (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vairankode Festival

Improperly created article as category. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do seem to be files it can be populated with: [3]. Category description needs fixing.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat concerned about the legitimacy of at least some of those images. There's some visible (Instagram?) watermarks. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is relevant to scoping, naming or description of this category.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John T. Williams

Given the existence of many other well-known people by this name (see en:John T. Williams) I would suggest adding a disambiguator to the category name, probably just "(architect)". Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Header 1

Category:Skupina stromů v zámeckém parku Palvinov

As far as I can tell, the category name here just means "Group of trees in Palvinov Castle Park". (1) Is there really something here that merits a category of its own? (2) If so, is there any reason it should not be named in English? The name here does not look like some official name or anything of the sort, but correct me if I'm wrong. Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles about geography and places

this should be renamed because audio files about countries or about cities are not only "about geography and places" but also about culture, history, and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Which title do you prefer? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoken Wikipedia articles about territorial entities‎" if there's no better proposal. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective and AKA MBG: I prefer Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles about places, if there's no geography beyond the places. The term "place" is quite broad, referring to a 2D human-geographic entity, which includes both countries and cities. See Category:Places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think place is the right term for cities and especially not for countries. It usually refers to some particular place like a specific park, a workplace, or a street. Check cats like Category:Places in Africa, they don't contain countries or cities for good reasons. Even if it was also referring to cities and countries, I don't think you have thought this through well and haven't really considered audio files about countries or about cities are not only "about geography and places" but also about culture, history, and so on. This is an inappropriate/unfitting narrow title and your proposed change would not improve the shortly described issues in any way. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about more short title: "Spoken Wikipedia articles about geography"? -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exact same problem as in the nomination. Pinging some top contributors to the articles country and nation @Yr Enw, Bello1781, MiltenR, Moxy, and Ganesha811: do you think Wikipedia articles about countries or about cities are accurately described/categorized as being "about geography and places" (or either of the two)? I don't think so and have suggested "Spoken Wikipedia articles about territorial entities‎" for lack of a better alternative. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category to Category:Spoken Wikipedia articles about geography , as all contents (Cities, Countries, and others) are topics under Category:Geography, so this name and structure comply with the Hierarchic Principle. Josh (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and countries relate to geography so the category on these categories is due. Nevertheless these audio files are not "about geography" at all, e.g. they are about state structures, peoples, cultures, economies, and so on and not or not just geography. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't clear what I mean if you did read the nomination, "Spoken Wikipedia articles about geographical regions" or "about geographical entities" etc would both make sense / not be false and comply with the Hierarchic Principle. The link is not an argument at all for the current naming or the slightly abbreviated one you linked. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the pings above worked. @Mateus2019: you created Category:Gallery page of sovereign countries, do you think these gallery pages about countries are only or mainly about geography which is a systematic study of the Earth (other celestial bodies are specified, such as "geography of Mars", or given another name, such as areography in the case of Mars), its features, and phenomena that take place on it. For something to fall into the domain of geography, it generally needs some sort of spatial component that can be placed on a map, such as coordinates, place names, or addresses.? See above. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoken Wikipedia articles about territorial entities‎" sounds reasonable (no misunderstanding possible). Category:Gallery page of sovereign countries handles entities on our earth. Greez, --Mateus2019 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bekkō-amé

Should be called Bekkou-ame to be consistent romanization with any existing system Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 11:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:London streets in the United Kingdom

Category for roads and streets named "London Street". Same for Category:London roads in the United Kingdom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 - These appear to be categories of roads/streets grouped by a common name and location. Format should be "Category:Roads named <name> in <country>". Josh (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Obviously. Such categories should be named as per the format. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kumar Gandharva Shankara

Is this the same as Category:Kumar Gandharva ?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People convicted of murder

How does this differ from Category:Murderers? Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Murderers to Category:People convicted of murder, in line with Category:Terrorists → Category:People charged with terrorism. Both "terrorists" and "murderers" are non-neutral terms, and we should always try to avoid using them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Murderers".
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

technically there exists a subset "people wrongfully convicted of murder" who are not murderers. RZuo (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make a very interesting subcat (or non-sub cat if we go back to just using Category:Murderers), though except in a case where a court has determined wrongful conviction, I could see it being very tricky to determine who belongs in it. - Jmabel ! talk 10:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes, I can see this as an argument for going the way Sbb1413 wants to go, because it is easier to have an objective criterion. - Jmabel ! talk 10:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if we go the "people convicted" way, does that mean we'd have to exclude murder-suicides? Would we have any way to categorize those at all? - Jmabel ! talk 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

going down this path it will just get even more complicated and out of commons' capability.

there are also people who are accused of murder (actually did something that's quite probably murder) but because of all sorts of legal procedures (plea bargain, turning state's evidence...) avoided being convicted... are they murderers?

5 guys together beat 1 guy to death on purpose. 1 of the 5 flipped and got a different charge. is this 1 person murderer? he's never convicted of murder.

also a murderer who's on trial but died somehow in the process? RZuo (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which gets to the point that using categorization as a way of collating data about a person is not a great practice. The point of having a topic for murderers is to gather files that depict murderers. Categories about people who happen to have committed murder are likely to contain a lot of files that have nothing at all to do with murder. Some will of course be only notable because of the crime they committed, but for others there will be a lot about the rest of their life.

That said, Category:People convicted of murder is a better title for the category if we are going to have it at all. Murder is a legal definition and only the relevant courts are able to pass judgement on whether or not a given act is murder or not. Unfortunately, as courts are a practical body, they rarely are going to try a person who dies after killing someone, so realistically many murderers will not be convicted as they die themselves before trial.

A person who is convicted of murder, but later acquitted still would be under this category, but hopefully in a sub-category specific to people convicted but later acquitted of murder. Josh (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes. there're many attributes of a person, but we dont create and assign categories to individual persons' cats (yet). for example, we categorise persons by nationality, but not by height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, armspan...

commons is just a media repository. there's no reason to replicate every possible way to group people/things. it makes sense only for wikidata and other wiki projects.

i feel that this kind of categories (about crimes) is one of those that should only contain most relevant files and cats, and not be used as an "attribute category". RZuo (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Inn on the Mile

Isn't this the same as Category:Bank Hotel, Edinburgh and should be merged? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caution; inexperienced editor here!

Are these categories both just sub-categories of the building address; 82 High Street, Edinburgh, EH1 1LL.

If you merge the categories, the danger comes from choosing a common name, and all too often I see 100 years of history dumped in favour of something that is only relevant here in 2024, which is great until the business is declared bankrupt 6 months later. How long before The Inn on the Mile becomes something else?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When things change name/function we tend to change the name of the category unless the old name stays as the common name. Categories are sometimes broken down into by year categories like Category:Eiffel Tower is if there are enough images. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Couchois Wright

Same person as d:Q111321518?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kunchadka

Category is uploader's surname; is it also a topic or place? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category is Place name. There are many Traditions and rituals. In that place -Lokesha Kunchadka (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokesha Kunchadka: Excuse me, can you give me the location of the place, so that other people can get to know about its rich traditions? Thank you. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokesha Kunchadka and Pigsonthewing: Never mind. I have searched Wikidata and found that Kunchadka (Q97261392) is a small village in Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka. So maybe the uploader is referring to that place. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokesha Kunchadka: Please can you confirm? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dog behavior

The wikipedia pages "dog behavior" and "dog communication" fall under "dog ethology" and this category should be renamed "dog ethology" to reflect that. --Logoshimpo (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ethology (science) and Behavior (action) are separate and distinct topics and should not be conflated. Josh (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being conflated when ethology is the science of animal behavior. Logoshimpo (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More concise and understandable as well as broader; dog ethology if anything would be a subcat. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cat behavior

The wikipedia pages "cat behavior" and "cat communication" fall under "cat ethology" and this category should be renamed "cat ethology" to reflect that. --Logoshimpo (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ethology (science) and Behavior (action) are separate and distinct topics and should not be conflated. Josh (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being conflated when ethology is the science of animal behavior. Logoshimpo (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More concise and understandable as well as broader; cat ethology if anything would be a subcat. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal behavior

The correct name is "ethology" and the page should be changed to reflect the page on wikipedia. --Logoshimpo (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No: For who are we making the category structure: for experts or for end users? For me: end users. They will search for "animal behavior", not for "Ethology". And on Commons we make our own decisions, independent from Wikipedia. Moreover: there is already Category: Ethology, a parent of Animal behavior. For me that is good enough. Though Category:Dog behavior and Category:Cat behavior (and perhaps many others) are difficult to find in the category structure when you are not familiar with taxon names. JopkeB (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human behavior exists as a separate category. Logoshimpo (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ethology (science) and Behavior (action) are separate and distinct topics and should not be conflated. JopkeB is correct to note that ethology is actually the parent of animal behavior. Also note that Commons categorization does not follow any of the Wikipedias, as they each have their own reasoning for their category structures--we do what is best for the Commons mission, that is to organize hosted files and make them more easily discoverable. Josh (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is being conflated when ethology is the science of animal behavior. Logoshimpo (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More concise and understandable as well as broader; ethology if anything would be a subcat. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bicycle parking buildings

merge to Category:Bicycle parking facilities, because facilities is a broader term that also includes things like lockers and racks. RZuo (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to cover bicycle parking facilities that are also buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. There are also bicycle parking facilities that are not buildings, like Bicycle racks‎. JopkeB (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many things fit under both, and are being categorised under both at the same time, e.g. Category:Bicycle sheds. i dont see why we need to keep, Category:Bicycle parking buildings with its narrower definition, separate from the broader category. RZuo (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should categorize better and solve overcategorization. JopkeB (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchy is Category:Bicycle parking facilities -> Category:Bicycle parking stations -> Category:Bicycle parking buildings. If there are files of bicycle parking buildings that are also categorized directly in bicycle parking facilities, that would be a COM:OVERCAT violation, and the fix is to remove the redundant categorization. Anything currently in the 'facilities' category that is actually a 'building' should be moved down to the 'buildings' category. Josh (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Unclear whether a small weatherproof bike stand would be a facility but it certainly isn't a building. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of flags

Should this category include every single photo depicting one or more flags? This is the problem I'm facing while trying to diffuse Category:Lahore Gate (Red Fort) with Category:Photographs of the national flag of India at the Lahore Gate (Red Fort)‎. Turns out that most photos of the Lahore Gate will contain the Indian flag, and A.Savin reverted my change at Red Fort in Delhi 03-2016 img3.jpg, which shows the Indian flag, since there is "no significance of the flag". But the significance itself is somewhat subjective. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the value added of the Category:Photographs of the national flag of India at the Lahore Gate (Red Fort), especially if it is hopelessly overcrowded as is now, but on the other hand I don't understand why should we delete Category:Photographs of flags and all its subcats. --A.Savin 20:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it should only include photos where one or more flags are clearly the primary subject of the photo. Photos where there are flags incidentally present shouldn't be categorized here. Omphalographer (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Omphalographer. JopkeB (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of prominence, i.e. exactly how prominent a subject should be in order to warrant categorization, has never been adequately decided on Commons as a matter of policy. Generally speaking however, it seems to make sense that a file should only be categorized by a topic which is sufficiently prominently depicted such that it could reasonably have some utility for a user seeking depictions of that topic. That does not mean it needs to the be primary subject, and in fact it can be relatively tertiary in the overall image. If it is still visible enough that the direct depiction and/or context provide any potential utility, then it should not be precluded from the topic category. Essentially, while some prominence is needed, the threshold is low. Josh (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Josh and Omphalographer and the solution I think is applied widely and which I think should become standard practice is to only put files where this is the primary subject at the top-level or into due subcategories, that here are e.g. by country or subject, and put files where it's not the primary subject into separate subcats, here e.g. "Photos including national flags" (albeit I doubt such a cat is very useful but it does seem valid). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've long included subcategories on images where the flag most certainly is not "the primary subject of the photo", but are a significant detail within what is shown. Does anyone find such category inclusion objectionable for example File:GentillyDirtyFlagRoofX.jpg? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me this one is OK. JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Diffusing images of Category:Lahore Gate (Red Fort) into Category:Photographs of the national flag of India at the Lahore Gate (Red Fort) is problematic. I don't imagine that most people seeking images of this gate are specifically concerned about whether or not the particular flag is visible in the image or not. Some may be, but I am not enthusiastic about removing images from the main category to put them in such a sub-cat. It would be better if there were other criteria that these images were diffused by as well as the flag. Josh (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CDC video redirects

since when do we have categories for redirects? Shouldn't this be deleted? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, someone else was mass-uploading CDC videos, but were giving the categories fairly generic names. I had renamed the categories to "CDC videos about X", and I think I made this category to keep track of the old names, because changing the redirects or deleting them might have messed with the other person's project. I'm not sure if it needs to be kept now, but the individual redirects might need to be dealt with somehow. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and thanks for explaining. Yes, it seems like multiple of these redirects should be deleted – somebody please do so. Examples: "Million Hearts®‎", "Physical Activity‎". Prototyperspective (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GIF maps

Can this be moved to "Animated GIF files of maps" or something similar? The discussion linked in hatnote seems to be about something else. Categorizing maps by filetype does not make sense if it's not about animated maps. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While non-animated GIF maps don't seem useful to me, they are are possibility. And thus such a category is useful for identifying those files for maintenance. MB-one (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why would it be useful and for what? If it was useful to organize or maintain maps by filetype then this cat is still not useful as it's only misleading and not containing most maps of that type. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should contain all files, that fit the definition (see https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=29227863) MB-one (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect illustration for why the category is misleading and incomplete which is one of two parts of my rationale; the other being that it's not useful or appropriate/reasonable to organize these maps by GIF filetype; as well as why this issue should get implemented (currently no feedback whatsoever). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Category:Images by file format is an established maintenance category tree and this is a valid element of it. It isn't clear why identifying non-animated GIF images of maps would be any more or less useful than any other topic under Images by file format. If we deem non-animated GIF images as not useful at all, then that is one thing, but so long as it is part of the current hierarchy, it should be applied to maps just the same as any other topic, per the Hierarchic Principle. Josh (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see how Category:PNG files‎ and Category:JPEG files‎ would be when categorizing or searching files by that and despite of the mimetype search operator makes no sense at all and these cats include nearly all images of that kind. It's only misleading users, a burden, a timesink, and nonsensical. Images by file format may make sense for e.g. the

SVG files‎ subcat. Maybe I'm wrong about the JPEG and PNG cats since there are some categories set by templates but this cat here seems entirely nonsensical. If somebody was to populate it and the other cats, it would clutter everybody's Watchlist and the existence of this cat only facilitates something like that happening. It may need a broader discussion but something should be done...whether it's some bot populating this cat or deletion of this cat or changing the scope of the cat. At the least I wonder why people didn't put info there that this cat is very incomplete so people landing there are not mislead. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories of cities of Iran

We don't prefix category names with "Categories of ". This and all similarly-named child categories need to be renamed (or merged, if the standard variants already exist). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I don't see it as practical. There are 100 more cities and 246 countries and territories, plus other locations, which use "Categories of". They are useful for listing relevant metacats, like 43 of them in Categories of Iran. The only issue is misusing these categories, like the case of Categories of Taipei. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is eminently practical; we do it for every other country in the world. The number of such categories (which many other countries exceed) is immaterial. Note that we do not have, for example, Categories of cities of Mexico. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: that's true, but most countries have holes in categorization tree. I'm not speaking about this, but in general. I do agree it's an ambiguous name and many may find it confusing, however, I'm against complete deletion. What should I do with 13 categories in Categories of Isfahan or 43 categories in Categories of Iran? No existing parent category is suitable to contain all. Perhaps renaming all cities and countries is an option, to something like Meta categories of Isfahan? --Orijentolog (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be equally redundant. The 13 subcategories of Category:Categories of Isfahan by subject themselves require renaming; and then should either be moved to Category:Isfahan, or all but one moved to Category:Isfahan by subject, which itself is currently categorised tautologically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: There's already meta categories for a lot of this stuff. Like we have Category:Categories of Qazvin by year when there's also already the meta category Category:Qazvin by year. Making the former totally redundant. that's not somehow magically solved by renaming Category:Categories of Qazvin by year to "meta categories of Qazin by year" either. It would still be just as redundant. As all as totally circular because Category:Qazvin by year is a "meta category of Qazin by year." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking only about renaming Categories of Isfahan to Meta categories of Isfahan, not about renaming subcategories. Those titles can stay because they're implied to be meta categories. I don't see much sense in Andy's proposal for renaming or merging. Iran by year has 817 years, plus Categories of Iran by year for 88 different subjects. The same is with cities, Paris by year has 450 years and 21 subjects. Merging all that wouldn't be practical. Neither is deleting container categories for metacats because they help maintenance. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: It's called an example. Regardless, your still either missing or intentionally ignoring the point that Meta categories of Isfahan would be circular and/or redundant since it's a "meta category of Isfahan." Obviously it wouldn't make sense to make the category a child of itself, but it would be totally acceptable to do that going by how it's named. Ergo violating the guidelines about how to create and name categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a single example, there are hundreds of such cases among countries and cities. I don't see how categories like Categories of Isfahan and Categories of Iran are "circular". They are not. And there's no any "violation of guidelines", that's nonsense. To repeat once again, all "Categories of" stand for meta categories, as the note says on the top of Categories of countries (aka Meta categories by country). These are (usually hidden) maintenance categories and have nothing to do with regular categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see how that's circular then I don't know what to tell you. Either your intentionally ignoring the facts or have codependency issues. How about this for an example though and I'd appreciate it if you answered the question this time instead of just deflecting. There's Category:Categories of Jaworzno by date, which contains Category:Categories of Jaworzno by decade. That category then contains Category:Jaworzno by decade. We also have Category:History of Jaworzno by date, which again contains Category:Jaworzno by decade. We would also normally have "Category:Jaworzno by date", but it hasn't been created for some reason. Regardless, that's the normal way to create "by date" categories for locations. So pretend like it exists for a minute (or don't, I could really care less).

How exactly are or would Category:Categories of Jaworzno by date, Category:History of Jaworzno by date, and Category:Jaworzno by date not just be circular duplicates? Again, all that Category:Categories of Jaworzno by date and Category:History of Jaworzno by date contain is Category:Jaworzno by decade and their both meta categories for ones "by date." So there's clearly no difference there. What's the actual, practical difference between those three categories though? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring anything, you still don't differentiate between regular and maintenance categories, like Andy. Jaworzno by date doesn't exist, only History of Jaworzno by date, likely because it follows naming of the country (History of Poland by date). It is a regular category and include dates, like years, decades and centuries. On the other hand, Categories of Jaworzno by date is an 'irregular' maintenance category which contains meta categories. If it was a regular category, it would be named something like Jaworzno by date by subject. But it is not. As such, it is categorized under a parent category Categories of Jaworzno (aka Meta categories of Jaworzno), while the regular category History of Jaworzno by date is categorized under regular parent category. Perhaps the situation confuses you because the irregular categories are not hidden. We have hundreds of thousands of Meta categories and it is useful to have subcategories of locations, subjects, etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of Jaworzno by date is an 'irregular' maintenance category What exactly are you basing that on? There's certainly nothing about it to indicate that's what it is and if I look at Category:Categories there's absolutely nothing there saying it's a maintance category or that other categories with the same naming scheme are either. So it seems like your just making it up based on if a category is called "Category:Categories" or not. Essentially everything called "Category:Categories" is suddenly a maintenance category even though there's absolutely nothing what so ever saying they are just because it's the only argument you seem to have for not deleting them.

while the regular category History of Jaworzno by date is categorized under regular parent category. Category:Categories of Jaworzno is categorized under the regular parent category Category:Jaworzno. So I have no idea what your talking about. The fact is that your making up this whole thing about there being "regular", "irregular", and "meta" categories. There's absolutely no difference between the categories what-so-ever though and most, or all, of them aren't hidden and are in normal top level categories. Your just inventing a system of categorization that doesn't actually exist as an excuse to keep the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed categorization ain't an argument. Categories of Jaworzno was not properly categorized, this was missing. First, Categories of cities of Poland, which should be under Categories of Poland (at the moment it is not), itself under Categories of countries. On the top of the latter, there's the note: "This category contains the general country categories of meta categories". Therefore, with proper categorization (also templates and notes), it would clearly indicate that category is for meta categories. Second thing, maintenance categories should not be treated as regular categories, under alphabet letters, but should be keyed or under some general maintenance category for the city (like WikiProject City in the case of Iran). Thus I put Categories of Jaworzno under the star key. Claims that I "make up excuses" or that I "invented own system" are false accusations from a person who thinks he is always right. --Orijentolog (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maintenance categories should not be treated as regular categories Again, what are you basing your opinion that "Category:categories" are or were meant to be maintenance categories on? Categories of Jaworzno or any other category doesn't somehow magically become a maintenance category just because you added the star to it. Things like that are exactly why I'm saying that's your own invented system. I asked you what your basing the believe that they are maintenance categories on and your response is that you added the star key to them. No one else is doing that or saying adding a star key to a category makes it a maintenance category. So 100 percent this is your own personal system. Otherwise again, what actual evidence do you have that "Category:Categories" are or were meant to be maintenance categories? It's a simple question. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're twisting my words again. I wasn't talking about Category:Categories, but Categories of countries (aka Meta categories by country). And no, I did not invent this category or its subcategories. It exist with the note for 13 years. Meta categories has two maintenance-related parent categories and the bottom. By continuing with false accusations, you prove that you are not capable for a rational, civilized discussion. --Orijentolog (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I brought up Category:Categories because child categories usually have to follow how the parent is being used. Ergo, if Category:Categories isn't a maintenance category then it wouldn't make sense or follow the guidelines for the child categories to be. Although the same exact question applies to Category:Categories of countries. What evidence do you have that it was or is a maintenance category? It's in Category:Countries and isn't hidden. There's nothing saying it's a maintenance category either. So what exactly are you basing your opinion that it's a maintenance category on? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orijentolog, regarding your comment, you mentioned the case of Categories of Taipei that was misusing, but it seems like you never discussed this issue with the creator. I would personally guess that the category is used for listing all categories named after Taipei, not listing relevant metacats. It's similar to providing people with an index to easily find categories. The format "Categories of XXX" is a effective option for those looking to manage their categories without compromising practicality on searchers. If you ave a better idea or better way to address the issue, then it's best to say so early on.--125.230.83.184 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

125.230.83.184, if "misusing" is a heavy word, we can use "misunderstanding". Categories of such format are made for listing meta categories, not topics. For having an index of all categories, Taipei by topic (like Taiwan by topic) would be suitable. That solution is something relatively new, it exists for two years. Indeed, I never discussed with Kai3952 about anything, but I'm well aware of his truly amazing job in categorizing Taiwan, and I hope he'll resolve issues and continue editing. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There's probably an argument for having a higher level flat list for categories as long as the child categories are normal metacats that aren't named "categories of." The whole thing is just needlessly ambiguous and circular at this level and/or when the categories are named "categories of" though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for "Categories of ...". Yann (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution

Categories named as "Categories of X" evidently confuse even the most experienced users, so a major overhaul is necessary. It's not only about cities of Iran, but also 100 more cities, 246 countries and territories, plus other locations. Such categories are only for listing metacategories, which is hard to understand based only on the title "categories of...", unless one opens the four additional parent categories and reads the note at the top. I don't consider deleting everything a good solution, this can be done instead:

Rename (actually restore) Categories of countries to Meta categories by country.
Rename all individual cases like Categories of cities of Iran, Categories of Egypt and Categories of London to Meta categories of cities of Iran, Meta categories of Egypt and Meta categories of London. Categories that are themselves metacategories (like Categories of London by type) can keep the existing titles because it is understood what they are for.
Put a note template on top of all those categories, explaining that it is a maintenance category for metacategories.
Make all those categories hidden, also keyed in regular categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your solution is that assumes after the fact that all the categories were created for maintenance purposes and you've provided zero evidence what-so-ever to show that's what they aren't for. Although it wouldn't matter because adding the word "meta" to the categories still doesn't resolve the underlining issues. The categories would still be ambagious, circular, and totally unnecessary either way. But certainly shouldn't just add "meta" to the categories under the assumption that they are or were meant to be maintenance categories meant for meta categories when there's zero evidence what-so-ever that they were created for that purpose. Be my guest and provide some though. Your the one who keeps going off on about how this shouldn't be based on my personal opinion, but then your the who can't provide basic evidence to support your claim that they are maintenance categories. I guess personal opinions are fine for you to have though, just not anyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trolling and repeating false accusations. Categories of countries (aka Meta categories by country) with the note on the top exist for 13 years and it wasn't me who opened them. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one saying I'm trolling and I'm the making false accusations. Right. Right. I've looked through a ton of these categories and most, if not all of them, are tagged as CatCats and don't include the note saying they are meta categories. One note on a single random category doesn't prove anything either. Especially since in the meantime there's a ton of categories that you created like Category:Categories of Kerman clearly aren't meta categories because they are tagged with the CatCat template. So I think your the only one trolling here. You can't just repeatedly go off about how these are meta categories and expect me to buy it when the one's you created aren't even being used that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing note on the top is indeed an issue, all subcategories should have it. Having only {{CatCat}} which explains it's a container category isn't enough, because there can be a misunderstanding like in the case of Categories of Taipei (it contains subjects, not metacats, and that's a terrible mistake). I never said that these categories are meta categories themselves, but maintenance container categories that contain meta categories. The categories that I opened are correctly categorized and contain the correct subcategories, as same as Categories of Paris, London, Moscow, etc. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that these categories are meta categories themselves From your comment on 19:09, 4 September 2024 "to repeat once again, all "Categories of" stand for meta categories" but sure you never said the categories are meta categories themselves. And supposedly I'm the one who's trolling. Right, right. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the content. As same as Meta categories which is not a meta category itself, but contains meta categories. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your just talking in circles because you have absolutely no argument what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pogrzeb państwowy w Chojnicach

category lacks parent categories
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you write more broadly what is the basis for the report? Given this description, I don't know how to respond to it. W2k2 (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category isn't included in other categories (no parent categories). This is a step missing from Commons:Categories#Creating_a_new_category.

So it appeared on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories.

Also, as the category isn't in English, it's harder to do.

Would you mind adding parent categories or at least a description of the scope of the category in English?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will prepare a detailed description in English W2k2 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One sentence is likely sufficient. I gave it a second attempt to figure out parent categories. Is it ok that way?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category to Category:State funeral in Chojnice on 2024-09-02 : This does not appear to be a proper name, so should comply with the category naming policy. Additionally, per the Universality Principle, Chojnice should be spelled consistently across categories. I would add the date to this to dab from any other funerals that may take place in this location. Josh (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social problems

What are the differences between Category:Social problems and Category:Social issues? Both sound synonymous to me, and both translate as "সামাজিক সমস্যা" in Bengali. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping NeverDoING, who created Category:Social issues. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question – probably best to

Merge these somehow (in one way or another). I could be wrong but I think it may be the case that "Social problems" is currently more structured/scoped like 'problems to/in society' (e.g. containing cat "Hunger") while "Social issues" is currently more structured/scoped like 'Issues tied to society, social relations, etc' as in sociological issues (e.g. containing cats "Extremism" and "Environmental problems‎"). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it is that social issues are more general and tend to effect society more then individuals. Whereas, social problems tend to be really specific and effect individuals more then the overall society. To give a few examples solitude would be a social problem. Social inequality would be a social issue though. But there's certainly no fine line there and concepts have a lot of overlap. So at least IMO they should probably be merged. Although honestly I'm not really sure how. I don't think there's a need for both categories though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:social issues - a situation may be a "problem" for a particular perspective, so "issue" is a more NPOV way to refer to it. Josh (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Timed Text by language

these subcats don't contain most files and it's redundant to Category:Files with closed captioning Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the captions in the files under Category:Files with closed captioning based on TimedText? If so, then yeah, it looks like Category:Timed Text by language would be redundant and should be redirected to the other one (as should the existing subcategories to the corresponding ones). --Waldyrious (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is the case. Videos with burned subtitles or softitles embedded in the file are in the Category:Videos with subtitles subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So please redirect this cat and all its subcats accordingly. It may be better to delete the subcats since there are many Files with closed captioning cats without Timed Texts in {language} cat equivalents. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Waldyrious and Prototyperspective: No, for instance this file contained the files with closed captioning category before even any timed text existed. Arguably this may have been an unintentional miscategorization done by Czar not understanding the meaning of closed (at that point in time).

There a r e m o r e e x a m p l e s, though. The category name files with CC suggests to include files that have subtitle streams embedded into them, not just the sidecar file approach we adopt here. Some of the linked files might have indeed closed captions embedded in them, I haven’t downloaded any of them to check on that.

On the other hand, currently the Timed Text categories are insofar redundant as all their members follow a language‑variety.srt page name suffix scheme, the variety spec being optional, yet this naming pattern is as far as I know not enforced (nor would I like to see it enforced).

@Prototyperspective: It’s worth noting that the Timed Text by language contain exclusively talk pages, whereas the Files with closed captioning categories (should) contain exclusively file pages. A plain redirect does not adequately remedy the situation. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 04:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional context and examples, @Kays! It makes sense that TimedText categories include only pages in the TimedText namespace, but I'm puzzled about the practice of tagging the talk pages instead. Is it because adding the category to the corresponding main page would show up in the subtitles? I would have expected that something like <noinclude> might allow that, but I'm sure this must have been discussed previously and it's that way because of technical limitations. In any case, IMHO this should be documented in the TimedText categories. Waldyrious (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes/no: The page content model is wikitext, see page info, so text gets scanned for MediaWiki syntax. (There’s a trivial edit filter preventing any edits not remotely resembling a SubRip text.) However, the SubRip format has no means to indicate a comment (a subtitle to be ignored) or the end of file. Therefore, 84user documented talk page categorization as the workaround from the very start. Another workaround would have been to append a pseudo subtitle

9999
99:99:99,000 --> 99:99:99,999
[[Category: Timed Text in Mentalese]]

but that only works on the assumption that no file would ever require 99+ hours of ~~subtitling~~ timed texts, and processors (media players, subtitling software) can deal with such subtitles without problems. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 11:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such hacks are not needed because categorizing timed text files is redundant (see below). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense. Yes there have been some miscategorizations and the solution is with any other such instances: fix it. In this case one could probably easily remove simply all Files with closed captioning that haven't been set through a template using cat-a-lot since these cats should only be set by the template.
These examples belong into the Videos with subtitles cats. They also contain videos with embedded / burned in subtitles. Having these two neatly separated is useful for many reasons. I downloaded some and it did not have a subtitles one can enable/disable/switch and if they had they would go into the Videos with subtitles cat. One could also create a new subcategory for videos in there that have soft-burned subtitles that one can disable or switch when downloading the video.
And? Talk pages are not categorized with only very exceptions and it makes no sense to categorize a random 1% subset of timedtexts for no reason and without any usefulness. I know that these cats are for the files. Adding categories to the timedtext is a waste of time, not useful, and redundant. A redirect is not needed but could be done.

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Group photographs in Taiwan

From my experience with categorizing files that Taiwanese uploaded, I found that their understanding of “group photographs” as meaning two or more people appear in the photograph. However, the word “group” should not be confused with “pair”, which is a separate concept. For categorizing purposes, we'd better discuss the differences between “group photograph” and “pair photograph” in use. The former is more people appear in the photograph and including three people, like this: File:11.13 副總統參訪「東山水岸餐廳」並品嘗臺中特色餐 (50596017188).jpg, but the latter is “NOT” including three people, and must only appear two people in the photograph, like this: File:1111105新聞稿照片1-111.11.11勇奪第一追分站建站百年紀念票卡兌換活動.jpg. If the categorization is necessary for photographing two people (or together), I propose to create the “Pair photographs in Taiwan” category so that it correctly categorized separately.

My thought is to exclude photographs of two people from Category:Group photographs in Taiwan. Actually, I've already started doing this for a while before coming to here. Because “pair” is more precise than “group” in the categorization - and I'm sure that is helpful to anyone!--125.230.65.194 15:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The definition of Category:Group photographs is a "photo of at least two or more people", so photographs of 2 people in Taiwan should not be excluded from Category:Group photographs in Taiwan as that would violate the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cognition

Is 'cognition' and 'activity'? This cat is in cat Activities but I'm not sure it really fits there...maybe it should be moved to a parallel cat linked from there via see also like a subcategory of Category:Processes. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animal hazards

This and especially Category:Human hazards intermingle hazards to animals/humans and hazards from animals. For example this cat has cat:"Natural hazards" set but also subcat "Bird hazards" which is about hazards to birds. Also lots of subcats and files are missing (see Category:Hazards for a more complete cat). Probably needs to be split. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, This is also the same.. Category:Animals on laps > Category:People on laps

As you pointed out, It might not be good. I want your re-categorize ideas. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns in King County, Washington

What is this category about? It includes (among other places) Shoreline and Black Diamond (legally cities) and Fall City (a census-designated place with no incorporated government). I believe the only official "towns" in King County are Beaux Arts Village, Yarrow Point, Hunts Point and (rather different from those three, but same legal status) Skykomish, none of which are currently in this category. Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a way to simplify finding communities in the county. There are lots of small communities in King and Pierce County. Only the Category:Cities in King County, Washington had a subcategory. Comparatively, there are few cities compared to the smaller municipalities. Tracing Cities in King County upwards, other states used 'Towns in xxx County' as subcategories. I didn't know the definition in Washington of towns, but assumed such would exist, so I created it.

Now with further checking, I've found that there is a Category:Municipalities in the United States and it has sub-categories of Category:Cities in the United States, Category:Towns in the United States, Category:Townships in the United States and Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. Next, I checked for definitions in Washington of Cities (1st): 10,000+ when organized or reorganized (10 in 2024); Cities (2nd):1500+ without a charter when organized or reorganized (5 in 2024). Towns are defined as 1500+ operating under the OMC (Municipal Code) (68 in 2024) and then 'Code' communities, unincorporated with 1500+ without charters (197 in 2024) and many unclassified, which may or may not be 'Census-designated' places. (ref: Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC).

Confused, okay, I looked at Oregon. Their state laws define a city as any governmental unit that is incorporated, large places like Portland, every county, every small community, as long as it has been incorporated. A quick look at Indiana and Ohio showed they have legal towns and villages. Without a uniform standard across the U.S. these definition have little meaning, as each state will need a written definition in each category to keep it straight. Also, back east, the reference to a village was common, haven't heard it west of the Great Plains. So, either we continue dropping every communities categories into the general county category and/or the state category or a general definition based on perception needs to be agreed on. I don't think Wikimedia users will have much luck trying to determine if the community in Washington is a Class 1 city, a Class 2 city, a Town or just a 'Code' community. Yes, the title Code is used in the legal references. I haven't seen any references to Townships anywhere west of the plains. If they exist, they're irrelevant to the public.

For me, I can work with Cities - large, economically significant; Towns - lots of variation, mostly locally significant; Unincorporated or Census-designated, when small or a remnant community, i.e., cross-roads like Category:Krain, Washington. If I don't agree with a selection, I'll ignore it. One is as good as another. In states that are pickier about names, that area can use narrow definitions, i.e., Category:Town of Pines, Indiana. I would prefer a way to remove 33 communities in Category:King County, Washington to a category that's just communities. I'd avoid 'Municipalities' as the Category:Municipalities in the United States is also in a discussion because the word Municipalities is not in any legal definitions, apparently. Chris Light (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good generic term in the U.S. is "populated places" (not "municipalities" because unincorporated places are not municipalities). That can be a parent to cities, towns, unincorporated communities, etc. As I say above, "town" has a legal meaning in Washington state (as does "city"), so we have to be very careful with those terms. - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African fabrics

redirect to cat:textiles of Africa? any difference? Category:Fabrics redirects to textiles. RZuo (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirecting -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perspective views by subject

It's not really clear to me what a "perspective view" is suppose to be here. Maybe like a first person perspective, third person perspective, Etc. Etc. But the sub-categories and images in them don't seem to be related to anything like that. So does anyone have any idea what exactly the point is here? Like what's a "perspective view" of a bicycle or street? Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with this and would delete most of the subcategories too. There's no clarity on how images in the category are distinct from any other photos. Blythwood (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arrondissement Haguenau-Wissembourg in museums

A very weird, parentless category that doesn't parallel any other that I've seen. It looks like all of the content in the subcats consists of archaeological finds/architectural elements in museums; the one image directly in the category is a painting possibly from this arrondissement. I don't think I've ever seen a "[PLACE]" in museums category besides this one and its two subcats. I'm open to someone clarifying the intent and fixing this, but otherwise I'd just get rid of it. Jmabel ! talk 11:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The subcategories contain images that were at the municipality level without any other classification.

So I created these subcategories to clarify and better order. Didivo67 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Didivo67: But are those two subcategories of any use? Again, I don't think I've ever seen a "[PLACE]" in museums category besides this one and its two subcats. -- Jmabel ! talk 13:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put two subcategories for now. But by looking only at the Haguenau Wissembourg district it can concern a good number of municipalities.

So I think it is useful to put in a subcategory instead of leaving at the level of the municipality.

I believe I understand that "in Museums" bothers you! I do not see what else to put since it concerns objects exhibited in museums from the municipality in question. Didivo67 (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly that, but also that the only existing parent category I can imagine for it is Category:Arrondissement Haguenau-Wissembourg, at which point we might as well put the two subcats directly in Category:Arrondissement Haguenau-Wissembourg.

At this point I think I've stated my case clearly. You are still welcome to try to fit this category somewhere useful in the category tree.

Note to closing admin: if there is further discussion on this CfD, please do look at my views expressed above. I'm taking it off of my watchlist, so I won't be further replying below unless pinged. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and white photographs by Antoin Sevruguin

suggested for deletion: the category is redundant. ALL photographs by Antoin Sevruguin are black&white either way. If the category is kept, all photographs by Antoin Sevruguin should be added to it (but I'd consider that overcategorizing). as of now, only a small part of Sevruguin's photographs are in the b&w category. JonasSebastianL (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

after some additional thoughts, realized that the category is a sub-category of Black and white photographs by photographer; therefore, it makes sense, and can be kept. I categorized all Photographs by Antoin Sevruguin in this category. as far as I'm concerned, the discussion can be closed and the category left as it is. wish you a beautiful day JonasSebastianL (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unusual

Category - and its similarly-named children - seems vague and subjective. And is - for example - "Unusual railway switches" really a grandchild of "Humor"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think “unusual” is actually pretty clear and subjective— it means “uncommon or atypical”. However examples of “weird” things should not be included— for example, “rare animals” are definitely unusual organisms, but there’s no reason this perfectly ordinary tree should be listed as “unusual” just because it’s slightly odd-looking. Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is "Unusual"? What for one person, or in one culture, is unusual (or eccentric), might for another be completely normal or just fun. What is now unusual architecture, may be within twenty year absolutely normal. It is better to categorize files according to what you really see (or hear) on an image (or other medium). Architecture usually is part of an art movement or style, then categorize it accordingly. JopkeB (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to “rare” or “uncommon”, if necessary. I don’t see any other category for objectively unusual things like Category:Rare animals. Or things like this Dronebogus (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rare animals is problematic itself - three of its member categories are related to rare breeds of otherwise common animals; Category:Exceptionally fluffy animals isn't rare at all. Which leads back to the inherent problem with "unusual" categories - they tend to become indiscriminate collections of things that people found interesting or surprising. Omphalographer (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A rare breed is still rare. Dronebogus (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ISO speed rating 0

This should not exist; category is based on faulty metadata. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or should it be kept for maintenance?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should not. We don't "maintain" this image metadata; if a file has incorrect exposure data, it is what it is. Omphalographer (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human sadness

Human sadness, sorrow, and "sadness". Three categories for one emotion? 186.172.58.159 23:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UBUJYENI

This is currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories.

Please add parent categories and an English category description. If an English name exists, the category should also be renamed.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Russian FOP cases/Moscow Metro

Not necessary to distinguish artworks in Moscow Metro from other kinds of artwork in Russia. Moscow, as the capital city of Russia, adopted the same copyright law of the country. Therefore, this category is unnecessary. A1Cafel (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikibudayo

Please add parent categories
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, also an English language description. @IHLubis, can you help us? You moved it to Category:Wikibudayo Mandailing today. How does it differ from Category:WikiMandailing?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first we didn't make a name for the location, it was Mandailing so we fixed it by adding regions or regions IHLubis (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibudayo Mandailing discusses all the activities and oral traditions of Mandailing

while WikiMandailing will be a category for various locations and has no connection with culture and will be a marker in various photos that will be applied to all photos posted by fellow Mandailing Wikipedians who passed the rapid program IHLubis (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Based on it, I tried to added descriptions (and parent categories) to both. Please complete/improve them if needed.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminal emulators

1. Can this cat be put into Category:Command-line interface? Or does it need a subcategory or new category for that?
2. "Terminal emulator" is generally not an appropriate name/category-name as the purpose and use of these is not only or mainly or not at all emulation of a video terminal – instead the purpose is being the command-line interface where the user can enter commands. Should there be a new cat for that and if so how should it be named? Category:Command-line shell interfaces? This issue also applies to the Wikipedia categorization. The Computer terminals cat containing the cat is in Category:Centralized computing. The new cat may have Category:Command shells set and would contain File:Open Iconic terminal.svg. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Terminal emulator" is a standard term of art for software which implements the terminal window itself, rather than the software running within that window; see en:Terminal emulator. Omphalographer (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the text first before commenting. This is a category for discussion (CfD), not for deletion, and the questions, of which none were addressed, do not include whether or not it should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women smiling

Look at the word order in the category title, women smiling and smiling women, I honestly cannot see any difference in meaning whatsoever. Further, the former was created ten years later than the latter, which shows that the latter can replace the former. Should we merge Category:Women smiling into Category:Smiling women?--125.230.80.164 10:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Smiling women into Category:Women smiling. I think we have a consensus to name human activity categories as "people activity", as evidenced by the presence of {{People activity}}. Let me ping Josh to verify the fact, although he is absent for about a month. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Smiling women into Category:Women smiling: Sbb1413 is correct. (Has it really been a month? Geez...life!) Josh (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner I couldn't track record of your activity due to your unusual long-term absence. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't tracking either, no worries. My August was hectic to say the least! Josh (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Komatsu-jinja (Katano, Osaka)

Should be called Hoshida Myokengu. All the signs locally call it Hoshida Myokengu Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yasaka-jinja

Should be moved to Gion Shrines Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia editor engagement

Is this only about mw:New editor engagement or about the broad concept? If the former the cat title needs to be moved and some cats like "Wikimedia active editor statistics" be removed. If the latter, the link at the top needs to be re/moved. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description seems sufficiently accurate to me. Category:Wikimedia active editor statistics could be removed as it's also part of Category:Wikimedia editor statistics, but it's acceptable here as those statistics are used by the initiative to assess its projects. Nemo 11:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was not talking about the description 2. There is no description but only a link 3. These statistics are not part of that project which only ran for a limited duration and also looked at or created few of the images in that cat 4. That does not address the other things re the title and unclear+misleading scope Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ ᱟᱰᱢᱤᱱᱤᱥᱴᱨᱮᱴᱚᱨ

Found on Commons:Report_UncategorizedCategories_with_infobox. Category needs parent categories and an English description. If possible, the category should also be renamed to a category name in English or at least Latin script.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Should at least be in Latin script. And the question might even be whether we need this category at all, with only one file. JopkeB (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Touhou Project characters by name

I think we should upmerge this Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 14:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume to [:Category:Touhou Project characters]]? - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the other characters by name categories? Trade (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cave 18, Pandavleni

Duplicate category, empty 2409:40C2:605D:36C1:D5E5:415B:C2E7:8FA9 14:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos of 2016 from Asia

what is this – it contains just 1 file and other videos in cat Videos from Asia are all only by country Prototyperspective (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outlines

needs to be split (or a new cat probably needs to created) with this one being about outlines (surrounding) and the other being about the overview-thing. Currently, at least two changes need to be made: removing Category:Tables of contents and removing the interlink to "Wikimedia outline article" on Wikidata ...maybe also renaming/moving this category title Prototyperspective (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags with night

It seems as if every flag that has a combination of one or more stars and a stripe or field that's blue or black all got added to this category, which is not an appropriate way to categorize these files. Most if not all flags in this category have nothing to do with night, and should not be here. 45.85.144.44 20:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Flag with night. 45.85.144.44 20:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, some of these flags are inspired by the night (see Category:Night in heraldry). I was going to add flags with moons too but you are welcome to remove them if you like. It seems that you don't know that there are night-like motifs too in regards to heraldry or flags. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some, but not all or even most. This category has thousands of files and it includes things like the flag of Europe, the flag of the United States, the Stars and Bars, the Republican and Democratic Party's flags, and a whole bunch of fake flags. How do you know that those are "inspired by night", let alone depict it? 45.85.144.44 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool of you to keep adding more flags to this category for having crescents. That's an awesome contribution to Commons. 45.85.144.44 21:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the files in here, it seems to me that this is only a category for flags with stars or moons. A good chunk of these aren't even in dark backgrounds, as to emulate the night sky (File:600 px Bianco con stella Azzurra.svg, File:Bandera de olancho.jpg, File:Flag of Embaevskoe.png, etc etc etc). This cat is only different from Category:Flags with celestial bodies in that it excludes the Sun. I can't see how this is any more useful than catting the files here under cats like Category:Flags with stars, Category:Flags with moon, Category:Flags with star and crescent etc., which a) are cats already under Category:Flags with celestial bodies, and b) many of these flags are already catted under those. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 23:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you think? Should we remove any flags or coats of arms that does not resemble the nightly sky because yes, there are some flags and arms that actually had a nightly design and yes, all of the designs reminds us of the night. Take a look at Alaska's flag, Guadalajara's flag and Grabow's flag. Also, the sun is a star and it has be catted under Category:Flags with stars. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sun is a star and it has be catted under Category:Flags with stars. Please don't. In the context of flags, stars and suns describe shapes, not astronomical objects, and they are distinct from one another. Omphalographer (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[T]here are some flags and arms that actually had a nightly design Yes. Some. Alaska, Brazil, and Guadalajara (Spain) are good examples. But it looks to me that you indiscriminately took nearly any flag categorized under stars or moons and added it to the category (I'm pretty sure 23 examples is enough).

Designs that reminds us of the night is quite subjective unless it's really on the nose. Is the requirement for entry just having stars or moons, as you seem to have done? I wouldn't say that Los Ángeles, Goicoechea or Pocatello remind me of the night sky. Ok, maybe it's that it needs stars or moons in a dark background! Well, Mississippi, the FBI, and the Confederate Battle Flag don't really scream "nighttime" to me. Ok, ok, I got it! It needs to have stars arranged in a way that looks like an existing constellation! ...oh, Category:Flags with star formations exists.

The second issue is that, even if we address the previous concerns, this is honestly not a useful category. Again, categories like Category:Flags with celestial bodies, Category:Southern Cross flags, and many other like these exist, and, like Omphalographer said below me, many of these use stars as an abstract symbol representing something else, not literally stars in the night sky. Rubýñ ^(Scold) 20:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much point in this category, for similar reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kzirkel (talk • contribs) 20:37, 8 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment You probably didn't look at the examples I had provided. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could see such a category being hypothetically useful, as there may be flags which explicitly depict the night sky, but it would require renaming—"Flags with night" is nonsensical—and is currently being misused. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Rubýñ, this is effectively "flags containing at least one star, sun, or crescent" - each of which is already a category which exists. Most of these are flags which use one or more of these symbols as an abstract symbol, not as a literal depiction of an object in the night sky; interpreting them all as "flags with night" is ill-conceived. Omphalographer (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sultans of Malaysia

This is a small category that duplicates and should be merged with Category:Monarchs of Malaysia. The Malaysian monarchs are known as sultans. CMD (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: But what about the king of Malaysia, which lacks a separate category?

Keep to cover provincial monarchs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other monarchs are currently in Category:Monarchs of Malaysia. CMD (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nameplates

Anyone know what the difference between this and Category:Name signs is? It seems like there's a lot of overlap and neither one is well defined. Really, Category:Name signs isn't defined at all. Probably everything in it should just be merged into this category. It's possible I'm just not aware of how exactly they are different though. Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cristo Redentor (Rio de Janeiro)

From the discussion here, English language should be the most recommended language for category names. This work is universally known in English as "Statue of Christ the Redeemer" (or sometimes "Christ the Redeemer statue"). To align with parent category Category:Statues of Christ the Redeemer in Brazil, this category should be moved to the more recognized English name of the statue: Category:Statue of Christ the Redeemer (Rio de Janeiro). Note that the final decision may affect similar categories like Category:Cristo Redentor (Barra Velha) and Category:Cristo Redentor, Ilhéus. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think only 5% of people in Brazil speak English. That's way to low to change the name. Maybe changing the name of the other categories would be justified depending on how many people speak English in the countries where those statues are located. I don't really know, but at least IMO it's a bad idea to change categories to English in cases where the percentage of people who speak the language there is extremely low. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 have you seen the discussion conclusion? Since "Libingan ng mga Bayani" was moved to Category:Heroes' Cemetery in the Philippines despite many English-language sources from the Philippines not using the English name ("Libingan ng mga Bayani" is even used in everyday communication here), it appears English should be the principal language to be used in categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to rehash the Village Pump discussion, but the guideline is pretty clear that things should be taken on an individual bases depending on the circumstances and as I pointed out in on the Village Pump most people in the Philippines speak English. So I don't think it's an issue in that case. Whereas most people don't speak the language in this case, so it is. That's just the kicks of having a guideline that depends on the circumstances. It's at least better then pander to every nationalist who comes along and wants to change everything to their "native language" regardless of how it is IRL or how many people speak the language there. Not to say you or anyone else is doing that here, but I have seen it happen. See the whole "Czechia" versus "Czech Republic" thing for one example. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Category names "should generally be in English" but proper names (the names of individuals or specific objects) are a reasonable exception (though I prefer parent categories for classes of things to be in English). --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename See the Universality principle, which says that names of subcategories should be in line with the parent category, in this case Category:Statues of Christ the Redeemer in Brazil, and that should be in line with Category:Statues of Christ the Redeemer by country and so on. Reasons might be:
- Categories are not just for inhabitants of a country, but for the whole world. People who do not speak Portugese should also be able to find files and categories about this subject. Wikidata items and descriptions in the native language can be a solution for inhabitants.
- The category structure is also a system. In a system all objects about the same subject, should have the same name. Application: More and more editors use templates, for categorizing and navigation (for example for countries, provinces and other subdivisions). Then all subcategories should start with the same name, otherwise the template is not working.

--JopkeB (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata items and descriptions in the native language can be a solution for inhabitants. You make a fair point. Things like this could and probably should be off-loaded to Wikidata. From what I've seen a lot of individual works, including statues, don't have Wikidata items though. I feel pretty strongly that users of Commons should be spending more time documenting works and artist on Wikidata though. Since we clearly benefit from it on our end. But it's a little hard to say we should use Wikidata as the default for this stuff when it's still lacking entries for a good percentage of stuff on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Place names including all other geographical names and building names should use the endemic form all the time.There is no reason to transform it into English language. Else agreeing fully to Rudolph Buch. Matthiasb (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiasb not the case at all buildings. We have Category:Main building of Moscow State University, Category:Canton Tower, and Category:Tokyo Tower. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as much for policies, guidelines, and standards around most this stuff as the person on here. But I think a good middle ground at least in this case is to say things should be translated into English as a good practice but leave it at that and let whomever creates the category name it what they want. Then eventually fix it at some point on our end. Or better yet, just suck it up and leave things alone. Otherwise you lose a lot of the flexibility and usefulness of a site like this and it just turns into an exercise in a few gilded blowhards lecturing everyone else about how to do things. That's one of the main reason's I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore and we don't need to transfer it over here by making hard and fast rules about everything. Not to say anyone here is doing that, but I think it's better to just take this on an individual bases like I said above and not try to turn it into a debate about other categories or otherwise make it into a bigger thing then it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Cristo Redentor (Rio de Janeiro) to Category:Christ the Redeemer (Rio de Janeiro) per JopkeB. Commons:Language policy clearly states, "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." Since the statue has a widely-known English name (Christ the Redeemer), this category (and its subcats) should use the English name, according to this policy. "Statue of" is unnecessary, since my proposed name "Christ the Redeemer (Rio de Janeiro)" clearly indicates that this category is about the landmark statue in Rio de Janeiro, and I named the category of the replica statue near Kolkata in India as "Christ the Redeemer, Eco Park, New Town" (by the way, many Indian languages, including Bengali, use transliterations of the English name "Christ the Redeemer" instead of the Portuguese name when referring to the famous statue). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose "Christ the Redeemer" is the representation of Christ, not the proper name of the monument. That one is "Cristo Redentor", others with the same representation have names like "Cristo Rei", "Cristo Salvador", "Cristo da Paz", and so on. Category:Statues of Christ the Redeemer in Brazil means only that type of representation, and has nothing to do with the monument name. The appropriate example would be Category:Replicas of Cristo Redentor, Rio de Janeiro, which mean replicas of that specific monument, and not other representations of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro (yes, there are more statues with that theme there). Furthermore, the monument is widely known as "Cristo Redentor" and variations of it everywhere, not just in Brazil, so don't try to fix problems that don't even exist.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Jmabel @Rkieferbaum @Joalpe who may be interested in this discussion. Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak disagreement. In general, I advise against translating official names if no official translation is reliably documented. For example, it wouldn't make sense to refer to Rio de Janeiro as "January River" on Commons, and the statue is officially named Cristo Redentor. However, I’ve noticed that the English translation is widely used in this case. I am unsure of the origin of this English translation, and unless it is deemed reliable based on official sources, I would prefer to keep the name in its original language. Joalpe (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the monument is widely known as "Cristo Redentor" and variations of it everywhere, not just in Brazil, so don't try to fix problems that don't even exist.
I have never heard of the Portuguese name, and have never seen it anywhere till the creation of the category Category:Christ the Redeemer, Eco Park, New Town. This is when I realized that the monument is called "Cristo Redentor" in the native language. If the monument is indeed widely known by the Portuguese name, why are we using the English translation in English Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and several other Wikimedia projects?

In general, I advise against translating official names if no official translation is reliably documented. For example, it wouldn't make sense to refer to Rio de Janeiro as "January River" on Commons, and the statue is officially named Cristo Redentor. However, I’ve noticed that the English translation is widely used in this case. I am unsure of the origin of this English translation, and unless it is deemed reliable based on official sources, I would prefer to keep the name in its original language.
It all depends on how widespread the English translation is, and not what authorities call it officially. For instance, Ivory Coast is officially known as "Côte d'Ivoire", but most English-language sources still use "Ivory Coast". Similarly, India is officially known as both "India" and "Bharat" (cf. Part I of the Constitution of India), but virtually all English-language sources stick with "India". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural annexion. Pah. And English/U.S. cultural imperialism. How cool! --Matthiasb (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the exact same logic of this proposal could be applied to rename Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris to "Cathedral of Notre-Dame of Paris" or even "Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris" and I don't see any of that happening any time soon. The policy states that names "should generally", not always, be in English. Cristo Redentor qualifies as a proper name as much as the Notre-Dame and similar monuments. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite numerous oppositions, I remain firm on using English names for famous monuments, as long as the names are widely used and reliably sourced. "Christ the Redeemer" is the widely used English name for the landmark monument. Similarly, "Cathedral of Notre-Dame of Paris" is one of the widely-used English translations of the name of the famous cathedral in Paris, although "Notre-Dame de Paris" is also widely used in English-language sources. However, "Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris" is not a widely-used English translation of the name, and you will have a hard time to find reliable sources using the name. Of course, you don't have to implement the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources. You can simply go through the reliable English-language sources commonly used by Wikipedia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that hard of a time though... Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I'm a native English-speaker have been familiar with the statue for over 60 years, and would never have thought to use an English-language name to refer to it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is natural to be accustomed to the native Portuguese name instead of its English translation if you're familiar with the monument for over 60 years. On the other hand, despite being a non-native English speaker, I was not aware of the native name until when I uploaded my photos of its replica statue at Category:Eco Park, New Town (near Kolkata, India) in Commons. When I was photographing the replica, the information board called it "Christ the Redeemer" without even mentioning the Portuguese name. This implies that the English name is widespread instead of the Portuguese one, which is mainly restricted to Lusophone and Hispanophone communities (10.6% of the world population, as opposed to 18.63% for Anglophone communities). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 agreed. Here in the Philippines, we call it "Christ the Redeemer statue" or "statue of Christ the Redeemer" (or the Filipino "estatwa ng Christ the Redeemer"), as we are a mainly English-speaking country. We don't use the Portuguese name to refer to the statue. It is very sure that none of the main news outlets in the U.S. refer to the statue by its Portuguese name. w:en:History Channel's w:en:Life After People uses the English name, not the Portuguese name, of the statue. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that is (or is not) the point. In Germany speaking countries we likely say Christusstatue but not as a proper noun but as to express that there is a statue, and it depicts Jesus Christ. As a Bismarckdenkmal is any monument commemorating Bismarck. But have a look into de:Christusstatue, our disambiguatioon page. Actually you wrote "Christ the Redeemer statue" or "statue of Christ the Redeemer". Maybe it is different in the Philippine English (or other varieties of the English language) but in British or American English the spelling with small e has the same meaning as in my German example. If you wrote it with big E than it is a name.

@Sbb1413: There is an issue with your example, IMHO. English is official language in India so there is nothing wrong with the English name in this case. Portuguese is not. One would expect a Portugues naming only in the State of Goa, but then, in the German Wikipedia we use at least for Goa (roman catholic) churches a portuguese naming pattern, as in de:Kategorie:Kirchengebäude in Goa. The cathedral in this category is a special exception from the very beginning of Wikipedia we just did not get rid off yet. Matthiasb (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiromanticism

Anyone know what the difference between this and Category:Pansexuality is? It seems like a distinction without a purpose. Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a purpose. See en:Pansexuality, it says pansexual is a subtype of plurisexuality (also known as multisexuality). Multisexual (en:m-spec) includes people who are not attracted to all genders [eg. polysexual/spectrasexual, trixensexual/neptunic (not attracted to men), torensexual/uranic (not attracted to women)]. Check google:Multiromantic, there are multiple results, and en:Multiromantic, it has a definition. Someone can be biromantic while asexual, panromantic and heterosexual (not multisexual). So not every multiromantic person is pansexual. And not every pansexual is multiromantic (e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7] {5}). Web-julio (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know if I agree with that. This category is in Category:Multisexuality which has the definition of being an "umbrella term for sexual orientations and identities where someone experiences attraction to more than one gender." Whereas pansexuality is a "sexual or romantic attraction to people regardless of gender." The difference between "more than one gender" and "regardless of gender" is one without a difference as far as I'm concerned. both are essentially about being sexually attracted to multiple genders. Categorizing people by who they are attracted to is kind of wierd and pointless anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tricolor flags of Portugal

Excessive amount of overcategorization. The following categories were created today to house Category:National flag of Portugal and File:Zs6gcck1z3s21.webp at the bottom of the category tree, and contain no other media:

ReneeWrites (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You probably aren't aware that this is caused by the cat color flags template. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that template is causing these categories to be created, then that's a problem with that template which needs to be fixed. Omphalographer (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have bring this one up to the template's talk page SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template creates a bunch of redcats. So if you start with a six-color flag it'll create 5 redcats for 5-color flags, which (if you create one of those, and apply the template) create redcats for 4-color flags, etc. But the template doesn't actually create the categories, that's still done by users. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unsure of the general utility of categorizing flags by the colors present in them, but creating 40+ categories for each combination and permutation of those colors is absurd - especially when the categories are restricted to "of Portugal", ensuring that no other media can possibly be categorized here.

This isn't even the full extent of these categories; most of the category tree under Category:Flags of Portugal by color is problematic in the same way. There are probably about ten times as many categories as actual flags in that hierarchy. Omphalographer (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take a look at the true cause of the categories, it is the cat color flags templateSpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilingual English-Hindi signs in India

Although it has various types of publicly-displayed signs using both English and Hindi, this category also has banknotes using both English and Hindi. Should banknotes be considered signs? Or should multilingual banknotes have separate categories? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banknotes should not be considered as signs.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajasekhar1961: This is what I want to say. Banknotes using multiple languages should have separate categories. But I see banknotes being put under signs categories, which does not sound appropriate to me. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gay

What is the point of this category? Files about homosexuality go in Category:homosexuality; categories about gayness as in “male homosexuality” go in Category:Gay men or Category:History of gay men or even just Category:male homosexuality. This is just an indiscriminate dump category for anything vaguely “gay” related (and obviously gayness is a very broad concept that includes multiple definitions) Dronebogus (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge or soft redirect, based on enwiki. Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tricolor flags of Ireland

Excessive amount of overcategorization. The following categories were created in the past few days to house Category:Four Provinces Flag of Ireland at the bottom of the category tree. The categories for which this is not the case have been excluded from the list below.

Excluded categories (these contain media and/or populated subcategories unrelated to this CfD, I'm listing these here so they don't get caught up in case these categories get pruned):

Category:Blue, green, orange, white flags of Ireland‎

Category:Green, orange, red, white flags of Ireland‎

ReneeWrites (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably aren't aware that this is caused by the cat color flags template.

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs by technical parameters

Category:Photographs by F-number (and subcategories)
Category:Photographs by ISO speed rating (and subcategories)
Category:Photographs by aspect ratio (and subcategories, with the exception of Category:Square photographs)
Category:Photographs by exposure time (and subcategories)
Category:Photographs by lens focal length (and subcategories)
Category:Photos taken with flash (not including subcategories)

These category hierarchies categorize images entirely based on technical parameters of the photo, like the aspect ratio of the image or the exposure settings of the camera. The resulting categories are, for the most part, not useful to downstream users - there is no conceivable use case served by a category like Category:Photographs with aspect ratio of 3:4 or Category:Exposure time 1/1600 sec, for example, as each of those categories are effectively a random grab-bag of photos which happen to fit an arbitrary technical specification.

The only reason these categories aren't causing database load issues is that they are (thankfully?) only occasionally applied to files, typically by a couple of specific users. There are about 60k photos under Category:Photographs by aspect ratio, for example - 21k of them in one user's personal category - and a bit under 100k under Category:Photographs by ISO speed rating; this is less than 1% of all photos on Commons. On the other hand, this limits the utility of the categories even further, since none of the categories are comprehensive.

If there's legitimate interest in making images searchable by these technical parameters, a better way of doing so would be to ~~set up a bot to import EXIF metadata into structured data~~ use existing structured data properties. Categories aren't the right tool for the job.

Omphalographer (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Beyond looking at individual categories, categories also serve to be intersected with other (topical) categories or browsed together with sibling categories. It's clear that having the values in EXIF isn't helpful at all. It's unclear if SD is of much help either.

For F-number/ISO/exposure time, I find categories at the extremes of ranges of values are more interesting.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK EXIF metadata is being imported into structured data. For some reason, I wasn't able to search for those statements with haswbstatement though. One idea would also be to automatically apply this category automatically from there like other SDC tracking categories. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per phab:T362494#9869450, Commons categories with many members (including SDC tracking categories) are a significant burden for the infrastructure team, and are discouraged:

[the table containing category memberships in] commons is four times bigger than the second largest one (enwiki) and in itself basically is responsible for 10% of all commons database and one third of all categorylinks tables of all wikis combined. [...] This is not sustainable. Commons needs to move away from this mode of categorization (to a tagging system for example). MediaWiki categories are not built for this.

As such: expanding the use of automatically applied categories to all EXIF metadata (rather than the small subset of files that are currently, largely manually, categorized) would be a catastrophically bad idea. Omphalographer (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's worry about that when and where it's actually relevant. I think the same person had similarly alarming language when they didn't know how to fix a trivial SQL query running too long at Commons.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of categories whose meaning is not obvious at first glance. These values are the basic values that make up a photo, not all EXIF data. Together with other categories, they are particularly useful for searching. They are also helpful when searching for comparable photos with the same aspect ratio, for example. They are not really a problem. I cannot see a reason for a request for deletion or for a discussion. I would also like to point out that not all visible structured data is also recorded by the search engine. That remains to be checked. And I would also like to add that I have very little (= no) interest in a discussion. It costs unnecessary time and energy. --XRay 💬 19:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to see searchable content, try ?action=cirrusdump. --XRay 💬 19:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to get back to you. I can understand the motivation behind the deletion request, but not fully. Not everything that you don't need yourself isn't useful for others. For example, I use the categories for questions such as

Which photos use a compression effect, for example focal lengths from 200 mm?
Which photos may have a spike, for example night shots with apertures smaller than f/14?
Which images fit on a certain area, i.e. aspect ratio with 2:1 or 3:1?

As far as I know, these questions cannot be solved with the SDC. Admittedly, the categories in Category:Photographs by aspect ratio now have strange aspect ratios - like 231:500. This is probably due to the fact that the exact number of pixels is used. With small tolerances, it is also possible to find more catchy aspect ratios. --XRay 💬 07:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be also add parent categories by ranges of values to these subcategories.

Sample: Category:Exposure_time_1/807_sec would also be in [[:Category:Exposure_time_< 0.01 sec]] or similar.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Voting as response to my (XRay) vote:

So, trying to query all images in the 1600-2000 ISO range times out on the Commons Query Service - probably because of the sheer number of objects it matches - but a narrower range (ISO 1700-1800) works and returns 14,669 images: [8]. This is substantially more images than are returned by your search for the entire ISO 1600-2000 range (1,779 returned).

Same principle for exposure time: [9]. This returns 289,668 (!!) files; search only finds 4,476.

And, really, this illustrates the problem with using categories for this. Even inasmuch as they can sort of be used to perform queries, they only work on the tiny subset of files which are actually categorized this way, and they're fragile. SDC is vastly more comprehensive and can be used to perform more complex operations. Omphalographer (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, the link you provide isn't openly accessible. It's not even clear if the result can be combined with any category.

It's a good point to bring these categories up for improvement. Clearly there is potential to make them more useful. Obviously, no category is meant to be exhaustive.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sensible to start the search directly. Your comparison doesn't work and I don't know what you're trying to achieve. It doesn't show anything either. I specifically wrote, together with other categories. That is exactly the recommendation for searching with regular expressions. --XRay 💬 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You need to click the triangle "execute query" button on the left to run the query; when you do, it will show the results after processing is complete. Omphalographer (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice of you to show me a SPARQL query. I could have formulated it in the same way, but not with the usual search form. The two search fragments are just examples, nothing more. And the other parts of the query, such as categories, are missing. The latter components are missing in your SPARQL query. Perhaps you would like to abstract the examples a little and not use them in exactly the same way. I think I mentioned my lack of interest in a discussion? This one has already cost unnecessary time. --XRay 💬 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one here making the assertion that these categories have a purpose, even in their woefully incomplete state, and that they aren't redundant to SDC. The onus is on you, not me, to explain how that is the case. I don't know what your use cases are, so I certainly can't "abstract the examples" to meet your expectations. Omphalographer (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer: First of all, I will return to the discussion area. Then I would like to make two comments: I don't see the need for me to justify just the use. Rather, I see the need to be presented with a coherent justification for deletion. Your examples show that you are confusing restrictions on the search function with the size of categories. Especially when using regular expressions, it is pointed out in the corresponding help pages not to use them without further search arguments.

Now to further questions. I have already listed three use cases, but I would like to repeat them again:

Which photos use a compression effect, for example focal lengths from 200 mm?
Which photos may have a spike, for example night shots with apertures smaller than f/14?
Which images fit on a certain area, i.e. aspect ratio with 2:1 or 3:1?

For me, there are three areas of application, but they are not necessarily suitable for the general public. Everyone has their own areas of application and I don't have enough imagination to cover them all. (This is why I am generally against deletions.) My three areas of application:

Looking for examples of my teaching activities as a lecturer for photography courses
Search for possible sources of error in my own photos
Building up statistics for my own pictures

I use several ways to do this:

the standard search function, especially for spontaneous queries
SPARQL to search for specific constellations
various queries via script using the Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata API

For the photo courses, I always need pictures with certain technical parameters. The technical values alone are not enough; keywords, for example, are also needed. The general search is used, for example, in the search for sources of error. The last source of error that I identified with the technical data was high ISO numbers - together with a category - in the images I used. I was able to significantly improve these (older) images with optimized noise reduction in my software. And I use the scripts to optimize and expand the descriptions of my images, among other things. I also keep a local database for statistic purposes on my home computer for statistical purposes, which I use for evaluations (via SQL). The local databases are maintained automatically, reducing the number of queries to Wikimedia Commons. This allows me to see how I use my photographic equipment.

I hope that this is enough information and that no further details are required. --XRay 💬 05:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Strong 'Keep'. Unfortunately, I don't have the foresight to be able to judge who could use which category for which purpose. However, reference is made here to the SDC. Perhaps someone can explain to me how to enable queries such as File: insource:/Category:ISO speed rating <1600-2000>/ (photographs with an ISO value between 1600 and 2000) or File: insource:/Category:Exposure time [1-9][0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)? sec/ (photographs with an exposure time of at least 1 sec) via SDC. I use this and similar queries - together with other categories. --XRay 💬 10:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to discussion section. --XRay 💬 18:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong 'Keep' List generation using category hierarchies with https://petscan.wmcloud.org is accessible and useful for downstream users. Currently there is also no substitute for categories in this use case. --Zache (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Australian Railways T class locomotives

Deletion is requested: images can go to category "South Australian Railways T class", i.e. without "locomotives". SCHolar44 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palazzo Satriano

I strongly suspect this should be merged into Category:Palazzo Ravaschieri (Naples), but cannot tell for sure from the one photo here. Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the same palace, but I can't prove it unfortunately. wikidata also doesn't help. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{Cat see also}}. If someone is sure, they can merge.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yogis by country

All subcats should be named as "yogis of <country>" instead of "<nationality> yogis", which is the usual naming convention in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This one seems so straightforward that I probably would have skipped the CfD. Probably keep as soft redirects, though. - Jmabel ! talk 11:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although Category:Tibetan yogis should be renamed to "Yogis of Tibet", Tibetan is not a nationality, since Tibet is not a country. So Category:Yogis of China is needed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the usual "<..> from <country/place>"?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: Both "<people> of <place>" and "<people> from <place>" can be used in this case. However, since the former denotes both the place of origin and the place of location, and the latter denotes the place of origin only, I prefer "<people> of <place>" as the main category, with "<people> from <place>" and "<people> in <place>" as subcats. This aligns with Joshbaumgartner's preferences. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support "yogis of country" format here, as it will cover both yogis originating from the country as well as those located within it. Josh (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"of" works better for of-ficials. In this case, I'd use "from".
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas entries in progress

These maintenance categories are parts of the largely dormant WikiAtlas project that I'm trying to revive. Unlike Wikipedia's maintenance categories, they are manually added to atlas pages with no accompanying template. Also, "fase" is not an actual word in English, it is spelt "phase". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luxury

This category seems way to ambiguous and ill defined to be useful. It's also apparently just being used as dump for random images of things that look luxurious but probably aren't because of how subjective the term is. So I'd like to just get rid of it if there are no objections. Otherwise it needs a better definition then just "behavior or equipment that exceeds the average standard of living", which could be literally everything and anything depending on the situation. At this point it's a Luxury for a lot of people to buy a coffee at Starbucks. Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are also categories like Category:Luxury box, Category:Luxury brands, Category:Luxury goods, Category:Luxury hotels, and Category:Luxury packaging. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luxury box could just be renamed to sky box or kept that way since it's the name of an actual thing. The other categories could probably just be gotten rid of for the same reason though. Category:Luxury packaging only has a single image and it's questionable the category is useful in that case. The others might be a little harder to deal with, but I think you could argue at least Category:Luxury hotels is probably meaningless since anything more expensive then a 60$ a night Motel 6 is a luxury hotel depending on the circumstances. There certainly isn't a clear definition of what makes something a luxury hotel or not and it's essentially just a synonym for the price anyway.

The same goes for luxury brands and luxury goods. If I make $10,000 a year and buy a $150 Lacoste watch then it's a luxury brand and buy for me. But for someone making $100,000 a year that same watch would be comparable to a cheap Casio. That's even getting into the fact that most "luxury" brands have different quality products and lower prices depending on the market. I can get a Kenneth Cole belt at my local discount store for $15 bucks but that same exact belt with a higher end tag will sell for 4 times that at a high end clothing store. It's the exact same brand and product though. So calling Kenneth Cole a luxury brand is wrong to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed feelings on this one. There's a concept here—I'd probably have called it "conspicuous consumption", not "luxury", myself—and most of what is here looks reasonable for it (except Category:Deák Ferenc St., 17 (Budapest), no more deserving of being here than several thousand other buildings). - Jmabel ! talk 14:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support renaming it to conspicuous consumption if there's a consensus to. Apparently it has a Wikidata item and some articles on Wikipedia. So it makes sense as a solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Keep at least Category:Luxury goods. It is a term that is used in economic theory, see w:en:Luxury goods. JopkeB (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, most of the files in the category probably need to be moved - basically none of them look related to the economic concept. Omphalographer (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they are goods that people will buy when they have enough income to be able to do so, and that is the point. The photos in this category can serve as examples for the theory. JopkeB (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Basics of topology

Seems like a subjective category. Some files in this category belong to Category:Homeomorphisms, which is not a subcategory of this, and lots of subcategories of Category:Topology could arguably be added here. It's better to use subcategories for clearly defined subfields of topology like Category:General topology, Category:Algebraic topology, Category:Geometric topology, Category:Differential topology etc. for predictable navigation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biological evolution by taxon

100% duplicate of category Category:Evolution by taxon EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this was a duplicate last month, even sharing the same Wikidata item as the other category, so I turned it into a soft redirect to the other category, which was older, contained more items, and was created by the same editor. There is no reason to retain this duplicate this category. However, today, Allforrous reverted the redirect without explanation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allforrous: can you explain why you have reverted the redirect? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human babies learning to walk

Rename to Category:Babies walking per the Universality Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They in many or most cases are not yet doing what can be described as walking or what is defined as such, they are learning to walk. Common naming schemes should not override usefulness and common sense, the cat is named perfectly fine. A parallel category could be created for Human (also not non-human ones) babies already having learned to walk actually walking. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Part (hair, 9:1)

Categorizing parted hair by ratio seems excessive and exhaustive. This impedes navigation, not helps it. ✗plicit 13:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The naming seems odd and could possibly be improved. There does seem to be a clear difference between Category:Left parted hair, male and Category:Left parted hair, male (9:1).

Whatever its name, it's unclear what navigation problem this poses. Can you elaborate?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

一九分け = The word "Ichi-Kyū wake", often used in Japanese (Ichi = 1, Kyū = 9). It's established recognized hairstyle. How do you say this hairstyle in English? But not always 9:1 > only Category:Combover. --Benzoyl (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

【評伝】柳生博さん、お茶の間に印象づけた一九分け社会科教諭役　軽妙な演技の裏に秘めた熱い心
https://www.nikkansports.com/entertainment/news/202204210001122.html (en:Nikkan Sports)

@Benzoyl: Is it a recognized hairstyle or a description of the hair part? For example, this website describes "the most common ratio is 8:2, 7:3, or 9:1". Are the other two recognized hairstyles? Can Commons users make the distinction between these three? Is the 6:4 ratio equally as valid? Is it worth splitting hairs (no pun intended), categorizing hair parts by their ratio? ✗plicit 14:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: (Daijisen [10] [11]) - "7:3" = 七三分け is very famous Japanese word.

But, I didn't create Category:Part (hair, 7:3). The reason is because I think there (7:3) are many examples. Conversely, "9:1" (or 10:0, 11:-1, 12:-2 ...) is rare hairstyle. "--Benzoyl (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)--Benzoyl (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

「七三分け」半世紀ぶり若者に大流行のなぜ
https://www.sankei.com/article/20150201-7VN2OUQ4JVKPJHMFCCBCYFE7JU/ (en:Sankei Shimbun)
七三分けとか、九一分けって言うけど、十〇分けって、あるのか？
https://tohspohaka.exblog.jp/8708492/
[大分]辻尾がトレードマークの“9:1分け”から新たな夏の装いへ
https://blogola.jp/p/12877

I agree with the deletion, as above all 5 categoories.

Sorry for the lack of study. There are the preferable expressions, "Deep side parts [12]" or "Deep side part hairstyle [13]" or "Deep side parted hair".

I think better, above 5 categories to replace with this. Thank you for giving me the opportunity reconfirming Category-name. --Benzoyl (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from the Archives of Ontario - Sports Photographs

Nominate for deletion.

This category is a duplicate of another: Images from Archives of Ontario - Sports Photographs. Mordant Fuzz (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did a copy-and-paste move. Maybe lowercase would be better for "sports photographs". I suggest moving this there and redirecting the other one.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of the World

This category seems pointless since it overlaps with a bunch of other subjects. Does anyone care if I just up merge what's in it to better defined categories? Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Allforrous (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly books that would fall under this heading that won't fall elsewhere. At least have a plan for those before you kill this category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quickly at content (this is after Sbb1413's remark below, so after Allforrous made some additions), I'd say for about half of the categories here (e.g. Category:The Historians' History of the World) and at least some of the images (e.g. File:Visual Timeline of World History By Land Area Conquered by Various Empires.png), this genuinely looks like a correct parent category. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 and Jmabel: Allforrous has added a bunch of categories under Category:History of the World today, despite themself agreeing on Adamant1's proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genre

I feel like the name of this category should be in plural form. Does anyone have an issue with that? Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portrait paintings by year

This whole "portrait paintings by year" thing seems pedantic and pointless. No one looks for paintings of portraits or categories related to them by the specific year. 99% of the time it's a totally meaningless fact that can just be put in the file name, description, or somewhere else. There usually isn't enough files or sub-categories to justify it in a lot of instances either. So these should just be up-merged to "portrait paintings by decade" or something. I don't really care, but the categories should be gotten rid of as to granular either way. Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is relevant for those interested in fashion history and history in general. Removing it would oversaturate the category of portrait paintings by decade and would require adding the categories “people by year” and “fashion by year” to each image. The idea is to simplify, not complicate. Ecummenic (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think fashion changes that much from year to year. By decade sure, but we only have one portrait painting for the years of 1461 and 1462 and the fashion isn't that different between the years. I don't see how it over saturate other categories when most of these onlg have a few subcategories and/or images to begin with either. The most populated subcategory only has like 5 categories and a few files to begin with. Most have less then that. that's going to over saturate anything. But if it does the answer to that is to just create subjrct specific sub-categories for portrait paintings. Not create a bunch of "by year" categories that barely contain anything. It just things harder to navigate and find. Plus leads to a lot of dead links in the "by year" template. And there's never going to be portrait paintings for a good percentage of years on here either. Which I think should be a requirement if there's going to be "by years" categories for the topic to begin with. Some people on here seem to have a weird aversion to categories containing more then one sub-category or image for some reason. No one cares if a category is contains 10 images. It's better then having to click through 15 categories before you can find what your looking for. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ecummenic: this category should be kept:

To prevent the parent categories of being overcrowded.
For those interested in fashion history and history in general. We, as laypersons, can think fashion does not change much from year to year, but experts do want to see the difference from year to year.
For navigating within related subjects.

JopkeB (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Lets keep the categories for "experts." Whatever. Did you even look at the categories? I don't see how up merging categories like Category:1553 portrait paintings will cause overcrowding anywhere. Even if you look at a category with a lot of files, I think the most I saw when I was looking through them earlier was 30 images and there was ways they be put in topical categories. 99% of them have way less files then that though. Like the amount of files in all the "by year" categories for the last 50 years except for 2 or 3 are in the single digits. So I really don't see how overcrowding would be an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiki Atlas of World History

I would have expected atlas pages here, but instead, it is a category of maps created for a Fandom page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all of the maps appear to already be categorized more appropraitely. The original purpose of these images isn't a good basis for categorization, especially given that it's a non-Wikimedia project. Omphalographer (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this idea from? Source website is a quite common categorization scheme at Commons. Exclusively non-Wikimedia BTW.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fandom (formerly Wikia) web site isn't the source of the images; they were all created and uploaded to Commons by User:ZyMOS. The Fandom site was the intended use of the images (I think they used to be able to embed images from Commons?), but that's not their source. Omphalographer (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recumbent people

Category:Recumbent people and Category:Lying humans are redundant to each other, and none of these are consistent with the consensus "people posture" category name, as established at Category talk:People by posture. So I'm providing my proposal in the tabular format, like Joshbaumgartner.

Current categories	New category
Category:Lying humans	Category:People lying
Category:Recumbent people	Category:People lying

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"People lying" is an unfortunate-sounding title; it sounds like "people telling lies" just as much as "people lying down". Is there some clearer phrasing we can use here? Omphalographer (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "people lying down" will be better, as you suggested. But the parent category is called simply Category:Lying, which is not about telling lies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither seem ideal.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999, @Omphalographer, @Sbb1413 That is just the limitations inherent in using the English language. If Category:Lying is too easily confused for lying as in telling lies, then the main category should be considered for dabbing. In any case, this category should match that category in its naming per the Universality Principle. For the time being, that is simply "lying". The question is whether it should be before or after 'people', and on that score, I don't think either are more or less confused with telling lies. Josh (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also ;Category:Prone humans Category:Recumbent people (prone), etc. and Category:Supine humans to consider.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999, @Sbb1413, it seems this category is confused between whether it is depicting the action of lying down, or the posture after one has already laid down. We have adopted the "'people' 'action'" order for activities, but when it comes to posture, there isn't a set order, which these other examples show. Josh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports competitors

What are the differences between Category:Sports competitors (athletes) and Category:Sportspeople, and that of Category:Sportspeople and Category:People in sports? My native tongue Bengali is unable to make these distinctions. It uses "ক্রীড়াবিদ" or "খেলোয়াড়" for people directly involved in sports, and "ক্রীড়া ব্যক্তিত্ব" for all people involved in sports, directly or not. I'm showing the problem in a tabular format shortly, as it will be easily digestible. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"People in sports" categories
Bengali term(s)	Definition	Corresponding English categories
ক্রীড়াবিদ/খেলোয়াড়	People directly involved in sports.	Category:Sports competitors (athletes), Category:Sportspeople
ক্রীড়া ব্যক্তিত্ব	All people involved in sports, directly or indirectly.	Category:People in sports, ~~Category:Sportspeople~~

By the way, I often use the term "sportsman" for male athletes, and "sportswoman" for female athletes. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've visited Dictionary.com for definitions. Here's what I found:

athlete: "a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill."
sportsperson: "a person who takes part in sports, esp of the outdoor type". It cities Collins English Dictionary.
sportsman: "a man who engages in sports, sports, especially in some open-air sport, as hunting, fishing, racing, etc."

It looks like the terms "athlete" and "sportsperson" are nearly synonymous, which explains why Bengali is unable to distinguish the two terms. "People in sports" is self-explanatory, and it directly translates to "ক্রীড়া ব্যক্তিত্ব" in Bengali. Actually, there was a discussion on the athletes vs sportspeople issue at Bengali Wikipedia's village pump (bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:আলোচনাসভা), and one user suggested using "ক্রীড়াব্যক্তিত্ব" (without the space) for sportspeople. However, there were no discussion on which term to use for "people in sports". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "athlete" was abandoned a while back because it's ambiguous. In some countries (including the US), it can mean anyone who participates in any sport. In other countries, it's specific to people in what the US calls "track and field", and other places call "athletics".

As for "athlete" and "sportsperson" being nearly synonymous, I think that "sportsperson" includes people who don't play a sport, such as coaches. "Athlete" wouldn't include coaches (except those coaches who participated earlier in their careers). -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "athlete" was abandoned a while back because it's ambiguous. In some countries (including the US), it can mean anyone who participates in any sport. In other countries, it's specific to people in what the US calls "track and field", and other places call "athletics".

@Auntof6: No English dictionary restricts the term "athlete" to someone participating in "track and field" or "athletics", let alone non-American ones. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the term (without any national qualifier) as "a person who is very good at sports or physical exercise, especially one who competes in organized events". Its "American Dictionary" defines the term as "a person who is trained or skilled in a sport and esp. one who regularly competes with others in organized events". In India, we have a lot of "athletic clubs" and none of them are restricted to what we call "athletics".

As for "athlete" and "sportsperson" being nearly synonymous, I think that "sportsperson" includes people who don't play a sport, such as coaches. "Athlete" wouldn't include coaches (except those coaches who participated earlier in their careers).

Yes, coaches, referees and umpires may be counted as sportspeople but not as athletes. I missed that point. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: I didn't say there was a dictionary that restricted the term. I said that Commons stopped using it because it's used in different ways in different places. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those wondering why I've nominated Commons categories for terminology issues at Bengali Wikipedia, I have nominated them because it is very hard to make a distinction between Category:Sports competitors (athletes) and Category:Sportspeople, given the English definitions are similar, and Bengali does not have separate terms for them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male military people

What's the difference between Category:Male military people and Category:Military men, if we don't have categories like Category:Military children and Category:Military boys? Downmerge Category:Male military people into Category:Military men. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's another category called Category:Adult military people, which should also be bombed as we don't have Category:Military children or Category:Military teenagers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a Wikipedia article on children in the military with the corresponding Commons category Category:Child soldiers. So maybe Category:Military children is a viable category. But the article itself says, "The adoption in 2000 of the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC) committed states who ratified it to "take all feasible measures" to ensure that no child takes a direct part in hostilities and to cease recruitment below the age of 16. As most states have now opted into OPAC, the global trend has been towards reserving military recruitment to adulthood, known as the Straight-18 standard." So Category:Male military people is still redundant to Category:Military men, as the military itself is reserved for adults.Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping Joshbaumgartner as he has worked extensively on both people and the military. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest that Category:Military men, Category:Military women, Category:Child soldiers and Category:Transgender military people (which I see we don't yet have) should cover everything we need, with some overlap (e.g. someone being both transgender and a man, or someone who was a child soldier later becoming an adult soldier so a category about the person would use both). - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both diffusion between child and adult and by gender in Category:Military people. We have images of children and adults in military service, and the issue of child soldiers is of social and cultural importance, so that distinction should be maintained. Likewise, gender in the military is also a notable social and cultural issue, so that diffusion should also be maintained. Using something other than the standard age/gender structure would violate the Universality Principle and I don't see any compelling reason for using a bespoke structure here as the standard one should work just fine.

What is a problem, is the cancer of using these categories to place categories for individual people just because they served at some point in their lives. This practice seems rampant in a lot more categories than this one, but it is turning this from an effective categorization of media to a trivia-list generator. Use a list or gallery to list individuals who were in the service, don't place the category for their whole life here. Josh (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female military personnel

Rename Category:Female military personnel to Category:Military women as the current category name is inconsistent with Category:Military men. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kamalapur Railway Station by year

All subcats are named "<year> at Kamalapur Railway Station". I think we write "Kamalapur Railway Station in <year>" when it comes to individual structures, and "<year> in Dhaka" for places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novobelokatay

Следует удалить Belokatay patriot (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tule station

Delete category, duplicant, Use "Tule station, Gotland" VisbyStar (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creamery in Tatev

Необходимо удаление в связи с ненадобностью Well-read MountainMan (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there is no creamery in Tatev. - Kareyac (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books of Italy

What is the difference between Category:Books of Italy, Category:Books in Italy, and Category:Books from Italy (similar for other countries, if applicable)? Do we need a books / country category for every possible pronoun?! Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochen Burghardt: In my opinion, Category:Books in Italy means books located in Italy, Category:Books from Italy means books originated from Italy, and Category:Books of Italy means books associated with Italy in some way. I believe Category:Books of Italy is an umbrella category covering both Category:Books in Italy and Category:Books from Italy. Pinging Joshbaumgartner who knows better on how to use these prepositions (not "pronouns") properly. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. I'm not sure if this category is needed (we could just have its child categories go directly in the various parent categories), but it's harmless. - Jmabel ! talk 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand "books originated from Italy", but I don't understand "books located in Italy". What is the latter category supposed to contain? If I photograph a book on my desk at home, should the photo go to Category:Books in Germany, and when I take that book with me during my holiday in Italy, and I photograph it there, should the photo go to Category:Books in Italy? I don't understand the purpose of this category.

As for "books associated with Italy", this is indeed a very vague and general name. Should the photo of my book taken in Germany also go to Category:Books of Italy (it is associated with Italy since I'll take it there temporarily)?

Please keep in mind that a category name should be understandable not just by its creator, but by arbitrary users of Commons. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the photo you mention would be valid in Category:Books in Germany, though I understand why in that case there would seem to be little value in such categorization. The intent of the 'books in country' categorization is more aimed at notable books which exist on display or in collections in a country, but doesn't exclude any depiction of a book depicted within a given country.

"Of" is indeed a catchall, as you describe, though ideally it would be more specifically diffused from there to be more useful.

Sbb1413 is completely correct regarding the structure of these categories. Josh (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Landslides at Mount Etna

no landslide at mount etna, just lava flow GioviPen ^{GP msg} 20:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

excessive and superfluous overcategorization diffused in subcategories of Mount Etna, this is just an example GioviPen ^{GP msg} 20:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lunar sample displays

Most subcats (excluding Apollo 11 and 17 ones) need to be renamed as "Lunar sample displays in <place>", as these subcats are about lunar samples displayed in a given place. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaffron (coat of arms)

Redundant and not useful, because Category:Coats of arms of Gaffron family already exists. GerritR (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaffron_(Adelsgeschlecht), demnach passen die Wappen nicht in die Polnische Wappentradition. Richtig ist die sonst übliche Einsortierung in "Coats of arms of Gaffron family". GerritR (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch people

Category:Eddy De Smedt

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kenzo van den Bosch

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ilya De Smet

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yves De Wispeleir

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kim Decrock

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tom Huylebroeck

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dolfke Martinio

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bart Permentier

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allister Pieterse

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marc Scheepers

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seth Van Passel

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lieven Vanleuven

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Niels Adams

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astrid Bello

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peter Bieleveld

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tom Blockx

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per COM:C2. No matching Q-item available.

Archie02 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zohra Boelhouwers

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michel Boerboom

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Angelo van den Bos

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michiel Bos

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mike Brand

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Willem van Dijk

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bart van Dongen

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peter van Egmond

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jan van Gaalen

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gertrude Bossdorf

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arthur Griffioen

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Babs Groenendijk

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tom van den Hoek

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wesley Hols

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eite Homan

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michael Jansen

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barry Kluft

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robert Jan Koelewaard

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hugo Kuijper

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victor Lodewijk

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brian Matters

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Morren

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ronald Mus

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rene Nienkemper

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peggy Nooteboom

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rick Pakvis

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patricia Visser

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paul Peters (activist)

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glenn Schaap

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veronica Schult

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theo Siebenheller

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sebastian Sportiello

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mark Tilburgs-Schumans

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marcel van Velzen

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frans Vogels

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dennis de Vries

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bram Wageveld

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rob van Welie

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johnboy Willemse

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Craig Cobb

Empty category - not likely to be used Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Header 3

Category:Images by topic

Delete. Same criterion as Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject. Pinging participants from the previous discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Various other media types are sorted by topic. Upermerging does not make sense. Basically no deletion rationale has been given. Sorting images by topic makes a lot of sense. It is useful to find categories for images by subject. It really needs to be kept and is a very useful category with some subcats and probably more subcats getting added over time. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: aren't we in danger here of duplicating almost the entire category tree? How does the rationale to keep this differ from the (rejected) rationale to keep Category:Images by subject? - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't know what category you tree or which rationale you refer to. It makes no sense to delete this category and is very inconsistent. The other cats in Category:Media types all have by subjects or by topic subcategories such as Category:Animations by subject‎. Why do people suddenly want to censor or delete all by subjects/topic categories? They are the most useful subcategories to find things you're looking. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I will presume you are in good faith in saying you don't know what I am referring to, and will expand on what I said. What I am saying is that if we build out an entire tree of "images of this", "images of that", etc., the vast majority of categories on Commons will have such a subcategory, and many, possibly a majority, will have all of their content in that category. Tat seems to me like a poor way to organize what remains predominantly an image repository, and is likely to remain so for many, many years, possibly permanently. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and yes that point was not clear to me and so far missing here. I briefly wondered if something like that is why e.g. Sbb1413 finds the car should be deleted. The cat is still useful for the cats it has and the pointers it may contain like a see also to Topics. Furthermore, animations and videos could be increasingly split out into distinct subcat which then makes creating also a category for only images easy. Often it makes sense to keep videos separate from images and a wrong assumption would be that if things are categorized as just described there would no category that contains both images and videos etc in one view. In any case, if there is no Images by topic subcat then the link to the Images category should be removed at the top right of the Main page (for being misleadingly incomplete etc and not a good place to start exploring to find media here). If the link is removed from there I may reconsider my Keep but other than that again the cat is valid and useful even if it's quite incomplete but it's worth it even if just for Photographs by subject for which the exact same rationale would hold but which is well-populated and useful and the same could and is taking place here. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically no deletion rationale has been given.

I have cited the previous discussion (Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject) as deletion rationale. To quote the nom of that discussion (Estopedist1), "do we actually need this category? It is poorly developed so it is easy to think about other solution (eg upmerging and deleting)".

No. I don't know what category you tree or which rationale you refer to.

Jmabel refers to the keep rationale of MB-one of the previous discussion. To quote them, "Yes, almost all files here are images, but then not all of them. To stay consistent then, we should categorize images in the same manner, we categorize videos, documents etc." I don't like quoting every single participant's statement of the previous discussion instead of just mentioning the existence of such a discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also quoting Auntof6's deletion rationale, which is more solid than Estopedist1's one,

My thoughts:
The category's hatnote says "To find images by topic or subject, see Category:Topics and Category:Categories." That implies that Category:Images by subject isn't needed.

The overwhelming majority of files here are images. If we try to include every "images of" category here, we'll end up nearly duplicating the entire category tree. That would be a bad thing.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A link is not a rationale. Yes we need this category. And at least as much as any other of the hundreds if not thousands of by subject or by topic subcategories. It seems poorly developed but other cats are not deleted on that basis and its state is not that bad and the situation should simply be improved. A note about it missing many subcategories is missing and can be added. A category not yet being complete is not a proper deletion reason but a reason for fixing that, and the same reason was discarded for Category:GIF maps which is a far far worse state. Upmerging does not make sense and bloats the category above and is not consistent with the many other by topic or by subjects cats. It does not make sense and this may well be the most useful subcategory here.

Yes, almost all files here are images, but then not all of them

Should be changed. All files in Photographs by subject should obviously be photographs and it's entirely baseless why this would be a reason for deleting this cat if this was the case.

The category's hatnote says "To find images by topic or subject, see Category:Topics and Category:Categories."

That's a misunderstanding. I think it was there because the category was missing subcategories but the topics cat has many subcategories so people could go there to find files. However, if people are specifically looking for images then this category is what they could use and again its incomplete state does not warrant deletion, which isn't done for other cats, but for populating this category. Cat:Images is linked from the Main page and people going there should have a by topic subcategory which again is the most common sense useful one. A hatnote that shows these links at this place is a great thing to do and what I just suggested doing since the cat is currently a bit incomplete. It can thereby serve as a pointer for people looking for images by subject to related categories where they can find what they need but harder to go through since these cats are not just photographs or illustrations or images in general but also videos and so on. It was constructive to add this hatnote to the category and it's sad to see people misunderstood what it means or implies. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the vast majority of files on Commons are images, so this leads to duplication of categories. If you want images of, say, the Eiffel Tower, you look in "Category:Eiffel Tower", there is no need for an additional "Category:Images of the Eiffel Tower" category. Blythwood (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your point makes sense.

In that case however the entire Category:Images should be deleted and the prominent link to that category on the frontpage that lots of people see and use be removed.

There may already be a category for photos of the Eiffel tower to distinguish these from paintings which may also have their category. Videos and audio files would also have these categories and maybe it just needs a bit of catalot work to make more cats have differentiated images subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bridges in Gyumri

Прошу удалить, неактуально Well-read MountainMan (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jizō in Japan by prefecture

All subcategories should be Jizo statues because there are also other artistic depictions of Jizo that this is not talking aobut Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this category should be renamed "Category:Jizō statues in Japan by prefecture"? I don't object.--禁樹なずな (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black and gold objects

Category:Black and gold objects and Category:Black and golden vehicles are inconsistent with each other. Use either "black and gold" or "black and golden" throughout Commons categories, not both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Audio files by subject

Should be deleted consistent with deleting cat Images by topic/subject – see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09/Category:Images_by_topic Prototyperspective (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos by subject

should this be deleted consistent with deletion of Images by subject/topic – see Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09/Category:Images_by_topic Prototyperspective (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep this, videos are substantially different from our default media type (photos), similarly to SVG files.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Allforrous (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photography by subject

Shouldn't this be deleted consistent with deletion of Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/09/Category:Images_by_topic Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deforestration in Turkey

Typo please delete Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could speedy delete it per C1 or C2. using Twinkle Prototyperspective (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamelbot automobiles by model

empty; can be recreated if a photo if this vaporware project ever appears mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:De Tomaso 1600 (prototype)

empty; can be recreated if a photo appears mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious artifact shops

Should be Category:Religious goods stores to match english wikipedia and to indicate that some of the goods sold here are consumable or otherwise do not really fit the definition of artifact Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FürthWiki

duplicate and redundant of Category:Fürth-Wiki which exists since 2018 and is set on the images this cat contains which the user who created apparently didn't check Prototyperspective (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct :) Could the Fürth-Wiki Category be renamed to FürthWiki? It's the correct spelling. Kristbaum (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could easily be moved but now some admin needs to first delete the new category or something like that. Please do. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I migrated to Category:FürthWiki before seeing this discussion. I guess all what is left to is is to delete Category:Fürth-Wiki. I will nominate. --[[kgh]] (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original older category should be kept and be renamed. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known I would not have touched anything. I think I made this mess even messier. :| As long as the result is Category:FürthWiki with whatever page ID I am all for it. --[[kgh]] (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clingmans Dome

A few Wikipedias have followed the name change to Kuwohi, but most still have the old name, and the category move to Kuwohi has been proposed. Abzeronow (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming category to Kuwohi. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the Climgmans Dome category should still be retained as a redirect; especially for the Wikipedias that haven’t changed the article title yet. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also; as far as I know; only the English and German Wikipedias have changed the name (unless some of them in Arabic script have); I have left a message on the French Wikipedia talk page (and a disclaimer that I used Google Translate) to request a name change. I also left one on the Simple English talk page as well. Will probably try to do so on a couple others as well. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the Simple English wiki page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I’ve also manually moved the article on FR-Wiki. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedias with a Latin script except for Cebuano, Danish, and Polish have changed over. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this CfD can be closed soon in favor of renaming the category on Commons. I'll approve the cat move once this is closed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I would be in favor of that: I would suggest maybe waiting another week just to make sure there ain’t any objections. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mohawk

This category and the ones it can get confused with, see

Not to be confused with the categories: Mohawk hairstyle or Mohawk tribe.

need additional hatnotes: What makes the Mohawk subculture different from the Mohawk hairstyle (and the Mohawk tribe, although that latter one is more obvious). Given the content of this category (which includes mostly people with notable Mohawk-(hairstyle)-like hairstyles), it seems impossible to distinguish between Mohawk hairstyle and Mohawk subculture. Also, the subculture doesn't even have any WP articles that define or describe it. Enyavar (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punk is a subculture, and sometime well after the hairstyle was first used by the namesake it came into vogue within punk. I imagine that is what Wieralee was intending, and for my part I think this cat should be fully osmoted (I think other people call it 'diffused' but osmosis is more memorable to me for some reason) to the subcats, on the basis of being an ambiguous name if for no other reason. Arlo James Barnes 09:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create a category without attaching it to an existing category tree. Such categories are immediately deleted. When I saw that you did something like that, I wanted to help you and pinned the category where (according to my knowledge) it should be. If you think my edit was wrong, just correct it. Have a nice day Wieralee (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this category is merely here to collect images of punks with mohawk hairstyles, I'd suggest to have "Mohawk hairstyle in Punk fashion" as child-nodes of both the Category:Mohawk hairstyle and the "Category:Punk fashion". The "Mohawk" category would then be a disambiguation for the crater, the town, the ship, the tribe, the hairstyle etc. --Enyavar (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal (that is, to make a category:Mohawk hairstyles in punk fashion) seems like a good solution to me. Thanks to Wieralee for helping with the initial placement among the categories. Arlo James Barnes 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done (probably?): I made the debated category into a disambig and moved all images from here into Category:Mohawk hairstyles and its subcategories, which now include Category:Mohawk hairstyle in Punk fashion, and a few additional color-themed subcategories (with double categorizations if a Mohawk is both blue and Punk, etc.). There were also a few Category:Mohawk tribe images, that I moved there. @Arlo Barnes: does this look okay? --Enyavar (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, well done! Arlo James Barnes 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Accessibility

this should probably not be directly in cat:"Disabilities" but e.g. in a cat above it in a subcat like "Disabilities in society". "Disabilities" suggests or implies the scope of the direct cat is subclasses or instances of disabilities. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Demonstrations and protests against austerity by country

révolution française 2A01:E0A:BA9:4E70:BDE6:39B1:2E17:C441 14:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Special

No clear central subject; this category should be deleted. The use of the English word "special" as a distinguishing mark in category names like Category:Special clocks or Category:Special relativity doesn't imply any connection between those topics. Omphalographer (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now if it is ever recreated it would need to be named e.g. "Special (word)" or specific things like "Customized products". Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini

Category:Lamborghini Sesto Elemento Italiana

empty, can be recreated if photos are taken mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Sesto Elemento Spyder

empty, can be recreated if photos are taken mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Auténtica

empty, can be recreated if photos are taken mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Invencible

empty, can be recreated if photos are taken mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep this. It has an infobox/Wikidata item and is correctly set up.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Maxcoupe

empty, can be recreated if photos are taken mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Minitariv

nonexistent vehicle mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Minotauro

nonexistent vehicle mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lamborghini Insecta Concept

empty, can be recreated if photos are taken mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Header 4

Category:Neo-realistic fiction

Empty category with endless loop Thyj (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cat seems empty so removing the loop subcat you could speedy delete per C2. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wir positionieren uns mit unseren Körpern in Unterwäsche gegen die Ausbeutung von Tieren! Wir sind für die körperliche Freiheit von Mensch und Tier und klären über Veganismus und Tierethik auf.

I moved this category to "2024-08 vegan protests at Pariser Platz (Berlin-Mitte)" but the category creator created a subcategory with the same name. It is too long and that German name isn't a succint descriptive cat title and thus I think the category should be renamed. The cat creator argued that this should for some reason be the category title because that is how the protest was protest was registered with Berlin Police under that name. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia maps

Category:OpenStreetMap and Wikimedia for example is not about "Service-specific Internet-related maps of the world" – should this category be changed somehow or a new category be created above it called e.g. Category:Wikimedia projects and maps/Mapping in Wikimedia projects/…? Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Russia

Can we rename this to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia by id? "Galleries" at Commons refers to gallery namespace, not categories.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Crimea (which, concerningly, is categorised as "in Russia"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia with known IDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How exactly are these categories not redundant or otherwise pointless in cases where there's already a category for the specific monument? To give one example, Category:WLM/8230481000 to be a duplicate of Category:Fortress Kerch. Albeit with less images, but I still don't see what the point is in having duplicate categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These 25K+ sub-categories are already being discussed at Commons:Village pump#Monuments database in Russia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: For some reason I thought that was purely about pages related to this and the template, not the actual categories themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coding

Code redirects here and many files and some subcats like Category:Code icons seem to be about software code. This cat also is not any where under Category:Computer programming. What to do – should it be split? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and convert to disambiguation between:

Category:Computer programming
Category:Medical classification (often referred to as "medical coding")
Category:Coding theory

and anything else that people are likely to be looking for. Many of the files in the category are deletable as unused screenshots, often of plain text; others should be diffused to more appropriate categories. Omphalographer (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia article videos in English

What is this? Please check the only two files. Should it be deleted? or moved? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I made this category in 2014. I do not remember why.

Whatever the case, merge to Category:Wikipedia videos in English which is the contemporary best category for the same purpose. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inanimate objects

doesn't this new category mean that all subcats in Category:Objects by type except for Category:Organisms should be moved here? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead organisms are still inanimate objects. So probably the category should just be deleted as to ambiguous and general. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, one could subcat the Organisms accordingly but since that hasn't been done removing the cat for now may be best. I think there should also be a note in the Objects by type and Objects cat that this is about the large-scope concept of objects in the sense of physical objects...I think many people at least colloquially distinguish between objects and living things. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I'm not so sure it would be worth creating specific "Inanimate cats" categories for dead animals or whatever, but you make a valid point that people usually distinguish between objects and living things. I just don't think this category is the best way to do that. Maybe there's a better way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 and Prototyperspective: Yes, I have created this category to distinguish between organisms and other objects. Actually, there are various terms that can include or exclude certain things, depending on context or use:

The term "animal" includes humans in biological contexts, but exclude them in other contexts. Currently Commons adopts both definitions inconsistently.
The term "country" always includes sovereign states, but some people or organizations also include dependent territories and some even include constituent countries.
The term "road" includes streets in some contexts, but exclude them in others. Commons has recently adopted the former definition, while Wikipedia adopts both definitions inconsistently.
The term "structure" includes buildings in some contexts (especially formal ones), but exclude them in others. Commons adopts the former definition, while Wikipedia adopts the latter.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. This seems way to general to be useful. Otherwise essentially everything that isn't a living thing could go in the category, which makes it essentially pointless. Plus there's already a lot of other better defined top level categories similar to this anyway. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever that things like Insignia and spikes should (or need to) be in the same parent category. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I had created two other categories to cater to varying definitions of two of the terms I've mentioned: Category:Nonbuilding structures (has a Wikipedia article) and Category:Non-human animals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't really see the point in those categories either since there's no "human animals" categories on here that I'm aware of. So it goes without saying that any category for animals is "nonhuman." The word "non" is just pointless. The same goes for "nonbuilding structures." Ask yourself if Category:Nonbuildings would make sense or be useful? I'd say no. We don't categorize things based on what they aren't. Otherwise there's an infinate amount of ways you could do it with in increasingly less usefulness as you go along. That's not how people search for things or find media anyway. If someone wants to find an image of a bicycle they don't search for "noncar vehicles" or some nonsense. Your just creating a bunch of categories that are going to turn into useless dumps of random media and categories that don't ultimate have anything to do with each other outside of not being some other thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue there is humans are animals, so this is just a colloquial distinction widely known to be 'false' in some sense so I support the current solution of having at least that one category be named "Non-human animals". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't disagree in theory but then I have an advanced degree of any time I've heard anyone refer to humans as animals, let alone "human animals, and if your have a category called "nonwhatever" then the "whatever" should at least make sense and have common usage somewhere. Rarely if ever are things refered to that way anyway. Like there's exoplanets and then planets within the solar system. The later aren't generally refered to as "nonexoplants" though. marine life/terrestrial life, matter/antimatter, yin/yang Etc. Etc. Yin/nonyin is kind of funny but wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't really see the point in those categories either since there's no "human animals" categories on here that I'm aware of. So it goes without saying that any category for animals is "nonhuman." The word "non" is just pointless.

@Adamant1: The "human animals" belong to Category:Homo sapiens, which is a species within the kingdom Category:Animalia. Yes, humans are animals biologically. So Category:Non-human animals is a valid category for animal topics that don't include humans under animals, especially Category:Animal rights and Category:Animal welfare. In most other cases, human (or people) categories will belong to animal categories.

If someone wants to find an image of a bicycle they don't search for "noncar vehicles" or some nonsense. Your just creating a bunch of categories that are going to turn into useless dumps of random media and categories that don't ultimate have anything to do with each other outside of not being some other thing.

The term "vehicle" always include cars, so the category Category:Noncar vehicles doesn't make sense. However, the term "structure" may or may not include buildings (see

Category:Buildings and structures categories of English Wikipedia), so Category:Nonbuilding structures makes sense for structure topics that don't include buildings.

Like there's exoplanets and then planets within the solar system. The later aren't generally refered to as "nonexoplants" though.

Yes, we don't call the planets of the Solar System as "non-exoplanets", and we generally don't have planet topics that are restricted to the Solar System. If there's such a topic, we add "the Solar System" in the category name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's keep it simple and focus on end users: Who will search for this category? And moreover: who will search for calendars and masks here? Category:Objects by type is good enough to make differences, is clear and fits in the category structure. This category does not fit in the category structure (there is no parent for Inanimate). --JopkeB (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obviously ineligible submissions for WLE

Do these historic categories still serve any useful purpose? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Barefoot nude people

Delete, since Category:Barefoot is already classified as a type of nudity in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I guess it depends on whether nudity extends to feet. Is someone "nude" if they are wearing nothing but shoes? If so, then I can see the distinction between 'barefoot nude people' and 'nude people wearing shoes'. However, even if that is a distinction, I'm not sure it is one we necessarily need to diffuse to, so I'm still not sold on needing this. Josh (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: IMO such distinction can be made as Category:Barefoot, bottomless, topless people and Category:Bottomless, topless people wearing shoes (or Category:Partially nude people wearing shoes). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Agreed. But it ultimately derives from how we define 'nude', which right now seems to be a bit of an open question. I guess my point was that I agree with you for now that 'barefoot nude people' can be upmerged into Category:Barefoot/Category:Barefoot people (see that CfD for which one we go with) for the time being, but that I wouldn't necessarily ~~see~~ oppose seeing the mentioned distinction re-emerge in a better form in the future if it really seems needed. 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Josh (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: By the way, I have given a working definition of nudity at {{Category navigation/appearance/sidenote}}, and it now appears in most nude categories using {{Category navigation}} templates. We will continue following this definition until consensus for a precise definition emerges at Commons talk:Nudity. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, and am generally in agreement with your version, but there have been a lot of voices with differing opinions that I have heard over the last couple of years since I started working on this topic. I've been meaning to write something up for that discussion, but have been wanting to gather a bit more information and then put it all together and distill it down to a proposal, or at least discussion starter. In the meantime, I have no problem continuing with what you laid out, as it essentially matches the structure that already is in place, so barring consensus to change, we continue on. Josh (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Niek Sebens

I'm the man on the picture and i want the picture to removed or to replaced please. EpicExplorer9999 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category exists mainly because the picture exists, its deletion is discussed there. I think the advice there is sound.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars by name

Category doesn't seem to serve a purpose -- self-referential. Suggest redirect to Category:Wars Sadads (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a "by name" category, where individual wars are categorized by name, while Category:Wars is a general category where individual wars are categorized "by country", "by subject", "by type", "by year", etc. Categorizing wars by name is useful to navigate to individual wars quickly instead of navigating individual countries, subjects, or years. We have thousands of categories like this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sbb; merging this would make the subcats of CAT:Wars a mess. See also CAT:Categories by name (flat list). Queen of Hearts (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. You might know the name of a war but not other details like when it happened, who the combatants were, etc. This kind of category is sort of a "flat" category that can be very useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the name of a war, you would search in the search index..... I am not sure what purpose this has but the search index (and the category is severally underpopulated, Sadads (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brunel University RFC

Only one file, which could easily go into Category:Brunel University logos instead, and the file is only tangentially related to the title of the category (it's a general university sports logo, rather than the logo of the club the category is titled after). Suntooooth (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suntooooth: thank you and this indeed makes sense. Lotje (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Six Flags

Similar to en Wiki, there should be three pages here as determined after a lengthy discussion here. Category:Six Flags vs. Category:Six Flags (1961-2024) vs. Category:Cedar Fair. Cedar Fair should have never been moved to Six Flags to preserve the history of that page. Astros4477 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sreejithk2000. Astros4477 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was done as per request here: Commons:History_merging_and_splitting/Requests/Archive_6#Category:Cedar_Fair_→_Category:Six_Flags --Sreejith K (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item

What is this category about? Why does it exists? In what cases should a gallery page be emptied, get a redirect and end up here? JopkeB (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they get deleted from sitelinks at Wikidata? Mike Peel might bring some clarity.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a gallery (or other page that can have a hard redirect) gets redirected it will appear in the category just like when a Wikipedia article or other page gets redirected unless the link is removed from Wikidata. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a description to the cat. It's an automated maintenance category by MediaWiki. If the redirect is deleted here, then the sitelink will also be deleted from Wikidata. However, there may be cases where having a redirect deliberately linked to from Wikidata is desirable - for example, where a species is known by multiple names, and there are Wikipedia sitelinks at the different names - or in Bonnie and Clyde situations, where Wikipedias sometimes have separate articles about the two, but we have one combined category (although in that case, we do have separate subcats, hence why I gave the other example first). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: I think it's mostly redirects to the corresponding categories. Ideally the bot at Wikidata would update the sitelink on Wikidata.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies and action. So:

First somebody empties a gallery page (or another page) and gives it a hard redirect.
Then ~~a bot automatically puts~~ the page is put into this category via MediaWiki.
~~Someone or a bot removes~~ Via MediaWiki the link to the page in the Wikidata item can be removed if that is the correct thing to do. Then the page automatically will be removed from this category.

Is this correct? JopkeB (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(2) and (3) happen via MediaWiki, not a bot. (3) should only be done if that is the correct thing to do (e.g., changing the sitelink to a new gallery/category). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel I am heavily in favor of 3 being done semi-automatically -- unless we designate it as an appropriate redirect match to -- do we have a template that signals that its been reviewed by a human? Sadads (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any templates, but it is possible to specify on Wikidata that it's a deliberate link to a redirect page - if you edit the sitelink, you can add a badge, 'intentional sitelink to redirect'. That doesn't help with cases where it isn't intentional, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(3) could be done by bot, similarly as it does the inverse operations (add Commons categories to Wikidata items).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected my conclusions. Is it now correct? Can I add them to the category, for more clearity?

Follow-up

Question: Why have those gallery pages being emptied? I see a lot that have a lot of images, up to at least 19, see Palazzo Strozzi, and the logo and manuscripts of the National Central Library of Florence are a lot easier to find in the gallery page Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze than in the Category:National Central Library of Florence. I admit, they are no beauty queens, but is that the reason to empty them? JopkeB (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sailko: Can you perhaps answer this last question? JopkeB (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! Galleries are a big unresolved problem of Commons, especially since wikidata came. In fact galleries often do link from Wikipedia articles, and they are usually hardly updated since 2008, and it contains just a small and random quantity of old, superseeded images. You bring as example Palazzo Strozzi: the palace has received a full new set of quality-eligible images, and those who were in the gallery were just the images the website should hide, in favour of the newest and higher quality ones, not something you want to see in the showcase as you jump from Wikipedia articles. Therefore that old gallery was not just annoying, but also misleading.

Another issue is that Commons categories are often already linked to a Wikipedia category, making it impossible to have a direct link to those from most of the wikpedia articles, since a Commons category can be linked to one wikidata entry only. A possible solution to these problem are redirects. I know it would sound a bit strange to those purists of wikimedia language, but there are a lot of positive consequences to this:

You can finally link Commons categories to any Wikipedia article (through Wikidata's "Multilingual sites" field), making you able to immediately find all the available images about a topic, divided into subcategories and with the possibility of sorting out quality/valuable images, slideshow and so on.
Searching from Commons is much more easier, even for thos who are not very into wikimedia language: any user who types just the name of a topic in the search box could end up in the redirect from the simple name and get directly in the categroy, where all the files are better displayed and updated.
Having the category linked (even though a redirect) in the "Multilingual sites" field of Wikidata makes the direct link to it appear in templates, like the recently-added "Family Tree". Without that link in "Multilingual sites" it would just appear there a plain name without a link, with a note that (if you see it) it will move you to a wikidata entry from where you have to scroll looking for the "Commons category" field and finally click to go to the Commons category. It is quite complicate for experienced users, can you imagine for a newby?
You can get rid of those poor galleries with just a couple of old files without going through a regular deletion procedure which can take months, and you will save chronology for a possible future reverse of the redirect and the recreation of a valid gallery.

Being said this, I found that redirects from ns0 (gallery page) to categories are really usefull, and I have deliberately created some in the recent past. So having a category that summarize those can be usefull (for some reason), but we can just ignore that and keep going on: Wikidata should not remove those link, as they can be very useful. I hope you agree in this, as the pros are much more than the cons. --Sailko (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sailko: for your explanation. Clear. Sorry for my late reaction.

Oppose But I have a problem with this procedure. To me it looks like a sneaky way to get rid of a gallery page which just one person does not like and only one person takes the decision that a gallery page should be empted. While the deletion procedure might be a long and inconvenient process, it gives the Commons community the opportunity to react (perhaps other people do value the gallery page in spite of the old images) and propose other solutions. Now nobody knows about the emptying, the creator gets an alert, but (s)he might have withdrawn from Commons long ago (since there are only old images in the gallery page, it will be created long ago). The community will never know what the loss has been, for instance a loss of information (see my remark: manuscripts of the National Central Library of Florence are a lot easier to find in the gallery page Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze than in the Category:National Central Library of Florence). So I'd rather have this kind of emptying gallery pages being stopped and the deletion procedure being used instead. Because if you can empty a gallery page this way (I assume with good intentions), anybody can, also people with bad intentions.

@Enhancing999, Mike Peel, and Crouch, Swale: How do you think about this procedure to empty a gallery page instead of starting a deletion procedure? JopkeB (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think they are redirected to the category of the same name though I'm not sure if that's still preferred. Otherwise Commons:GA1 or Commons:Deletion requests can be used to delete galleries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB, Enhancing999, Mike Peel, and Crouch, Swale: HI, I understand in general about the regular procedure, and basically I agree. Just I would like to point out that sometimes galleries have less than 3 files (while the category has hundreds or even thousands), or the files displayed were mostly old images uploaded by myself years before, so I thought in such cases making a redirect would be equivalent of a speedy deletion. Since Commons has regularly too many procedures to handle, and they usually take many months to be completed, I would agree that "speedy deletion" though a redirect would be preferable in those limited cases. Thank you for your consideration. --Sailko (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is only you who decide that galleries with less than 3 files or old images should be gone, while there is no policy for that. So either you start a discussion for those gallery pages, or you start a discussion to get those criteria into the deletion policy of gallery pages. JopkeB (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA1 only applies to galleries with none or only 1 image so if there are 2 it can't apply. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and proposal

This category is a maintenance category. But it is unclear who maintains this category and what should be done with the gallery pages in it.
The procedure to add a gallery page to this category is:
1. First somebody empties a gallery page (or another page) and gives it a hard redirect.
  1. Gallery pages are emptied and not get a proper deletion discussion to bypass the long procedure for a deletion request.
2. Then the page is put into this category via MediaWiki.
3. Via MediaWiki the link to the page in the Wikidata item can be removed if that is the correct thing to do. Then the page automatically will be removed from this category.

Proposal

The royal way would be to revert all gallery pages in this category to the version just before the emptying, and then create proper deletion requests for them (with the possibility for a discussion, so not speedy deletions).
If there is agreement about a deletion, a gallery page should not get a redirect again, but the gallery page should be deleted and the Wikidata item should be adjusted accordingly. These gallery pages should not be in this category anymore.
From now on this category will function as a real maintenance category: gallery pages in it are red flags, they should get a proper treatment, like a deletion discussion.
This category will get a description and a guideline how to handle gallery pages in it.
Someone who does not agree with the current deletion policy can start a discussion to get other criteria into the deletion policy of gallery pages, so that more gallery pages can get a speedy deletion instead of a deletion discussion.

@Enhancing999, Crouch, Swale, Mike Peel, Sadads, and Sailko: Do you agree? Is the summary correct or did I forget something? Do you agree with the proposal?

@JopkeB: you did not read all the positive effects of having a redirect linked to wikidata I wrote before? What is the point if the conclusion is just delete the galleries and the redirects? I totally do not agree, sorry.

nobody has much complained so far of those very poor deleted galleries, so why loose so much time in reverting all of them and make regular deletion procedures? I would agree for new galleries from now on, but if you have to open up all the terrible galleries we already got rid of, the time would be better spent if we would use it to make some good galleries instead, reflecting most the files currently in the categories, not just a couple of files form early 2000s.
redirects should not be removed, instead they should be pushed further for use in Wikidata, for the application in the "Multilingual sites" field. Read at least the reason n.3 I wrote up before, and see how there is not a valid alteranative for that, as far as the Wikidata structure is what it is now.

I can only agree if the conclusion of the deletion procedures is the transformation into redirects, where necessary, since the categories usually cannot be linked directly in the "Multilingual sites" field. I would turn this into a policy, as for me it is very necessary --Sailko (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1. I have no objection at all that people improve the galleries that have been emptied in the past because they only contain old of poor images. But I still have a problem with one person deciding on whether a gallery page should be emptied for this reason, because this is not a democratic method. So that is why I put so much time and effort in making this good. And democracy costs perhaps more time than other methods, but I think that is worth it. Why should people otherwise make a gallery page if it might be emptied just because another person does not like it?

@2. Why should you add an empty page with a redirect to Wikidata? You can just as easy add the category itself to the "Multilingual sites" field, where the redirect is going to. See for example d:Q8632151. And if it is not possible, see the "topic's main category" field, in that item it is possible and it is valid for the original item as well. So I do not see any reason to keep empty pages just for the sake of Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JopkeB: . For @1 it is ok for me, but I also think there should be some trust on experienced user (more than a milion edits), but I will not complain about that.

@2: this is the key topic: use of redirects in Wikidata. No, the category is not linkable because often linked to a Wikipedia's category, and the "topic's main category" field does not have the same effect. It is slower, needs a sort of veryfication, a further Wikidata category entry, does not make an instant link, neither in Commons nor Wikipdia articles: you cannot rely on that for a Commons' "Wikidata Infobox" instantly, nor it shows a direct link in templates like "Family tree". If you change the name of a Commons category, with "move", when it is linked in "Multilingual sites" it is automatically fixed in Wikidata, while "topic's main category" needs as a manual fix. "Topic's main category" has a lot of issues and downfalls, that require very experienced skills. This is a Wikidata problem that could be fixed one day, requiring long Community discussions and procedures involving Phabricator. A redirect is an easy way to fix it quickly, that has no downfalls. Redirect is a soft link that hurts nobody, so why should we not use it? Please agree on this, then I will agree on your proposal. --Sailko (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: I am asking if we can use a ns0 redirect in the "Multilingual sites" field when the category is not linkable. We can use a different category for those, like "Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item not to delete" --Sailko (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree: This would mean that Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item would be useless for what I guess is its original purpose: maintenance. Or with "Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item not to delete" you create another problem: you have to take care that the redirects in it will not automatically be copied into Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item as well. This makes it unnecessary complicated to maintain this category structure. And what for? If there is a problem with Wikidata, then it should be solved there, not here, not use an empty gallery page to create a workaround. I did not experience this kind of problems with Wikidata. JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did experience the problems I listed, instead. How am I supposed fix to Wikidata? Of course I have not the skills to do so, otherwise I had already done. But you can chose or not to fix a minor problem (the existence of a redirect linked to Wikidata) doing a larger issue (untiying wikipedia articles to their main categories and files). --Sailko (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why you never reply about the issues I listed in particular? Did you even read what I wrote? --Sailko (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of a Wikidata item with which you exeperienced such problem? JopkeB (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pictures of the Year (galleries)

The name is problematic as "Galleries" at Commons aren't categories. There is Category:Pictures of the Year (by year) for the annual subcategories. These could be removed and the category for the remaining subcategories named "by place".
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. We usually reserve the term "gallery" for mainspace pages in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the name is deceptive Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 20:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:玄史生 files uploaded by Solomon203 from Flickr

This category is not created by the user, pinging @Solomon203: to see if the user wish to keep this or not A1Cafel (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems redundant to Category:Flickr files uploaded by Solomon203 in 2024 created by Solomon203.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos in English

I think this should be merged with Category:Instructional videos on using Wikimedia Commons in English‎. There are several other categories where the same thing could be done. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikidata video tutorials

should probably be merged with Category:Wikidata videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instructional videos on using Wikimedia Commons

should probably be merged to Category:Wikimedia Commons tutorial videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Instructional videos on using Wikidata

should this be merged to Category:Wikidata videos? Prototyperspective (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is ok for me, no problem. :-) --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from diseases and disorders

I think these cats, espeically Category:Disease-related deaths by country, should be split by people categories (and images) and statistics thereof. This may renamings of cats like "People who died from diseases and disorders". For example see Category:Deaths from cancer in the United States which has several charts. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany

is this subcategorized so that one can add Category:Deutsche Bahn to any subcat? It was previously set only on arbitrary "2021 Fallersleben rail accident‎" and "Zugkollision Leiferde Dalldorf vom 17. November 2022‎" Prototyperspective (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could please explain this Cfd request again? I don't understand the nomination here. Category:Deutsche Bahn is a german rail company created in 1994, but Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany covers rail transport accidents in Germany across decades and companies. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but only a subcat for DB-related accidents belong into "Rail transport accidents in Germany". Individual accidents don't belong in there directly. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see individual accidents are usually categorised within the proper subcats by decade (which we see straight within Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany) and also by state. I don't see specific subcategories to categorise rail transport accidents additionally by company resp. companies involved. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine. Please simply don't add them to the Rail transport accidents in Germany cat or the Deutsche Bahn cat directly. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. If I happen to see such a mistake, I will help our colleagues to categorise properly. I suggest to close this Cfd now,

Keep. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as Deutsche Bahn is active internationally (see at Category:Subsidiaries of Deutsche Bahn), it doesn't make sense to have this company's accident category within Category:Rail transport accidents in Germany, not at all. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Esperanto 1887-1908

This and similar categories don't seem to add anything that isn't provided by, and better structured under, Category:Esperanto by decade‎ and Category:Esperanto by year. The periods seem arbritrary and all but one has a one-year overlap with adjacent categories. Sinigh (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Sinigh (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this category are also better organized by the by-year categories and e.g. Category:Books in Esperanto:

Category:History of Esperanto 1945-1974 documents

Sinigh (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sinigh, thanks for the consideration. Your arguments make sense. Then in the days, I recreated historical periods (they are not necessariliy arbitrary) not thinking about the nature and characteristics of WMC. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I feel like I should apologize; the "by decade/year" branches are much later additions that didn't exist until over a decade after the timeline structure that your categories provided. It was obviously good idea to create them, too.

Would you say that the "by decade/year" have replaced the above categories, or do you think it would make sense to include (versions of) them in a category like "Esperanto by period"? Sinigh (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geology by decade

Category:History of geology was just added but this cat contains cats like Category:Volcanic eruptions in 2023‎ while geology is Study of the composition, structure, physical properties, and history of Earth's components, and the processes by which they are shaped, a branch of natural science so natural events would not fall under it, only the study thereof. Probably this needs restructuring so only (partly new) subcats about the research/study are included here but there are also alternatives like renaming. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judges from the United States

Also the various subcategories by US state etc. Category not about place of origin, but rather where they work. Eg, a judge on the court of a given state may be from a different state or another country (where they are from) but they do not work in the role of a judge of where they are from. Where they work as a judge is is important. From history I see that the category was from 2006 to 2008 at the much more accurate and appropriate name "Judges of", but was moved to "Judges from" by SieBot - if there was any explanation or discussion I do not see it. I propose moving back to the "of" formulation. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create Category:Judges of the United States as a parent of this category. Infrogmation is right, "from" refers to the place of origin. However, "of" is a catchall term, which would contain judges somehow associated with the United States, including the place of origin ("from") and the place of location ("in"). Joshbaumgartner and others have used this scheme with "of" as the parent, and "from" and "in" as children. This is what I also follow. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ala d'Aquila (Eagle Wing) harp guitar played by Italo Meschi

Empty category FeralOink (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photos and videos from unmanned aerial vehicles by country

these should be moved to just be about photos; they contain nearly no videos which are separately located in Category:Drone videos by country Prototyperspective (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Categories#Selectivity principle. Videos are not photographs and they should not be in Category:Aerial photographs by country and its subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Media from unmanned aerial vehicles in Colombia for an example – category was moved and files put into subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Views of cities from above

1. Shouldn't this be merged somehow with Category:Aerial photographs of cities?
2. Wouldn't Category:Cities from above be a better clearer more findable name including more expectable subcats like Category:London from above instead of just Category:Aerial photographs of London (if it should instead be a subcat please explain why)? It would contain files like 1 and 2 and maybe one should distinguish between top views (like from drones straight down) and from elevated positions (like high buildings) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your first point, as you've indicated in your second point not all views from above are aerial views. The latter are images from airplanes, helicopters, drones/UAVs, hot air balloons etc., but should exclude images taken from inside tall buildings (or from outside, such as from the EdgeWalk). I'm indifferent on the naming of the category; when I created it, I was following the naming structure of categories that already existed at the time. Mind matrix 17:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. So I'd like to move the 'Views of …' categories in Category:Views from above by subject and the subcategories here to the '{subject} from above' naming scheme. This is to harmonize category names with this standard, to make the cats more findable, and to make it show up in the HotCat autocomplete when entering {subject} as is a common practice. I added the discussion note to that category and half of them already have the {subject} from above naming. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be merged somehow with Category:Aerial photographs of cities?

No, Category:Aerial photographs of cities includes only photos from above, while Category:Views of cities from above also include paintings and videos from above.

Wouldn't Category:Cities from above be a better clearer more findable name including more expectable subcats like Category:London from above instead of just Category:Aerial photographs of London (if it should instead be a subcat please explain why)? It would contain files like 1 and 2 and maybe one should distinguish between top views (like from drones straight down) and from elevated positions (like high buildings)

Cities from above is a better alternative of Category:Views of cities from above, as it does away with the redundant "views of". However, Category:London from above should be a parent of Category:Aerial photographs of London, because, as I have said, "aerial photographs" means no paintings or videos from above, only photos. We already have separate Category:Views from aircraft (planes, drones, helicopters) and Category:Views from buildings (Category:Views from roofs and Category:Views from top storeys), which help distinguish between two types of views from above (not "top views", as we have reserved the term for aerial shots of objects perpendicular to the camera). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. With merging I meant still having subcats for things like paintings and videos. I see how it shouldn't be merged like that now. I agree with what you said. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aerial photographs of ships

Can the be moved to Category:Ships from above? It's clearer and more findable...a better cat title in general. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They clearly are aerial photographs, so making this disappear isn't a good idea.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tollbooths and toll gates

Confusing category structure, especially for non-native English speakers. Which is the top category here? Category:Toll plazas or Category:Tollbooths and toll gates? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic-waveform: Neither is. They are different things that can exist independently. A previous CFD that discussed this is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/06/Category:Toll gates. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. For context, I'm not a native English speaker and therefore don't quite grasp the difference between each of the terms. I was trying to categorize File:East Link Bridge Toll Booths - geograph.org.uk - 5417618.jpg. The directory structure confused me instead of helping me make the best choice. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic-waveform and Auntof6: I had created this category for structures that are either tollbooths, toll gates, or both. The discussion is on whether the two things are separate, and it turns out that both may or may not coexist. East Link Bridge Toll Booths - geograph.org.uk - 5417618.jpg shows both tollbooths and toll gates, where tollbooths are the arches and toll gates are the checkpoints attached to the arches. Maybe Category:Toll structures or Category:Toll infrastructure might be better terms for Category:Tollbooths, Category:Toll gates, and Category:Toll plazas (sequence of tollbooths and/or toll gates on a toll road) rather than the current name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a toll plaza a structure. A toll plaza is more than the tollbooths and/or toll gates. It also includes the related adjacent roadway. That can be extensive when there are many tollbooths/gates in a row, such as with this picture and this one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are still structures, since roadways are also structures (land transport infrastructure). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unidentified rail transport photos in the Czech Republic and Slovakia

In the present state, the category is redundant to its only child. Even if a subcat for Slovakia existed, this category would by just a trivial combination of its children, without any realistic use. Janhrach (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Fort-Louis (Bas-Rhin)

I see no functional difference between Category:Maps of Fort-Louis (Bas-Rhin) and Category:Maps of Fort-Louis. Can they be merged and under which name? Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agricultural charts

this cat misses est. 95% of files and I suggest it's upmerged to Category:Agriculture statistics Prototyperspective (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, @Prototyperspective: . This category dates back to 2008 when there was no possibility to list structured data yet. One could expect nowadays that every graphic (here agricultural charts) can be documented in the structured data by field (agricultural) and by type (chart) and such category as Category:Agricultural charts could be generated automatically.

The need still stands to divide all Agriculture statistics by type for archiving and data retrieval afterwards. Upmerging in this case will make that category into a mixed media/type collection, which is harder to comprehend. At the moment there doesn't seem to be an uncontrollable situation here. The cat offers a selection which I think is good for a first impression, and as so as a first introduction. -- Mdd (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you largely abandoned the site years ago? Because you probably have many items on your watchlist and would have noticed that most files do not get structured data set (and if they get it set some/the key things are often missing or the data is just pollution/flawed instead of useful). I estimate far less than 0.1% of agricultural charts have the structured data set roughly like you described. Moreover, if they have it set, it would be set by adding it en-masse based on the category, not the other way around.

The category is misleading and people will go it and think this is all the agricultural charts on WMC and leave again. Subdividing the Agriculture statistics cat by datagraphic type is a good point. However, I don't see much of an advantage of that as long as maps are in their own subcategory and the drawbacks are large as explained. I think the best solution would be upmerging for now except or until somebody actually comprehensively subcategorizes by datagraphic-type. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lead

the cat is currently in Category:Soil pollution. That cat should be removed and things be moved into a subcat about that in specific. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval people by country

it seems like for the country sub-categories here there's a mix between "Navy people" and "people of the X country Navy." Category:Naval people is currently a redirect to Category:Naval personnel. So probably "Navy people" should at least be changed "Naval personnel" or visa versa at the least. That aside though, the parent category of this is Category:Military people. So maybe "Navy people" makes more sense then "people of the X country Navy." But then everything else for people related to an organization outside of the military seems to be "people of X organization." Anyone can look through Category:People by organization for a ton of examples.

I personally don't care either way, but it should at least not depend on the country and organization per the Universality Principle. So renaming all the categories related to the military, including the Navy, to "people of the military", "people of the navy", Etc. Etc. just makes sense IMO. There doesn't seem to be a consensus about it either way though. Ergo this CfD. So, what should the standard wording be? Or should it depend on the military branch, country, a combination of the two, or something else entirely? Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have slowly come round to agreeing with this Universality Principle, that you mention. Clearly, at the start of the project this is what was adopted.

It holds true for Category:People, the bulk of Category:Physicians and Doctors as a prefix. Then there's Category:Accountants by country. We have Category:Jockeys from Scotland, not Scottish jockeys.

The entire structure of the project is built on the same lines as we do using the prefix People. It works for ships, Category:Vegetables, Category:Cities, Category:Politicians, etc. So therefore we shouldn't mess with it.

There are exceptions, of course, but they are so rare and not so well travelled, as to upset this rule. We should be correcting these cats, rather than changing high profile cats away from this Universality Principle. Equally we should be protecting these high profile cats, from deviating away from the Universality rule

The Universality Principle, walks hand in hand with the need for a consistent approach. It should be routine to be able to predict what a categories name is likely to be, without having to search for it every time we want to edit.

This is important for editors, who do multiple changes in every edit of a file. I appreciate that the majority of people here, who only do one edit at a time, using hotcat, are deaf to this issue. They need learn and conform with it.

Category names should also be as short and direct as possible, however, I agree with you, that the Universality Principle is a priority to that. Broichmore (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Douglas Emhoff with writers

Nobody in this category is known foremost for being a writer. The only file is of Doug and Mayor Pete, who's known primarily for being a Cabinet secretary, presidential candidate and mayor, not a writer. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upmerge
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pictures from outside town or low relevance

Should this category remain intact or be disseminated/renamed? EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First may I point out that the pictures are in a category Tarsus (town)? Put there by people who may have used it just to get rid of the problem where to put them, or ignoring the (town) in the category name (bots do that often). In Turkey a province has the name of its capital, which also is the name of the main district (in some cases with the addition of "merkez", "central". As a result pictures that have "tarsus" in their name are almost routinely in the main category. I created this category to be rid of them there, but in this case would invite anyone willing to do so, to disseminate the content. But don't let it be me. I have been wishing for years that a three tiers naming would be introduced to and used in Turkish provincial categories, but instead I sometimes see two tiers and a few of more districts, and a mish-mash of pictures of the capital put in the province, and vise versa. Any takers? Dosseman (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move the files to the locations they depict and the location they were taken.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trabzon pictures by one photographer

Should this category remain intact or be disseminated/renamed? EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree unclear scope, unnecessary category, Sadads (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, and I would also delete the parent category "Views of Trabzon" too and merge content to just "Category:Trabzon". "Views of Trabzon" is an unnecessary subcategory when most files on Commons are photographs or other visuals. (I would keep "Trabzon town views from hills", "Postcards of Trabzon" and "Trabzon in art" categories as meaningful, though.) Blythwood (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pigeon Valley (Cappadocia) walk by one photographer

Should this category remain intact or be disseminated/renamed? EmpressHarmonic (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know the region very well but disseminating the mixed bag that this collection is, is in my mind beyond what anyone except for a local with lots of time on his hand, and nothing better to do, could do. Also I have regularly come across similar large collections of pictures by the same photographer, where he/she seems to have done little more than take a picture every half minute while touring in Cappadocia and later naming most of his/her pictures wrongly. When I suggested deleting them tout court I was told they might have some use somewhere, but that I might put them in one 'by one photographer" category. That's what I did here. On the plus side, this series seems to be a report of a single walk indeed, though part of the "walk" is in Göreme town.

On some rare occassions I have come across pictures from the same source that I could identify and were of a quality that made me add them to other categories. But most are below par in my opinion. Dosseman (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, endorse deletion. Given the variety of locations I would move all to "2018 in Nevşehir" if they're all in that province? Blythwood (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maps of Cappadocia in history

Should this category remain intact or be redirected/renamed to align with common category naming conventions? Example: Category:Old maps of Turkey EmpressHarmonic (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Dosseman (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current sports events

misses most items, populating it would be better than deletion but if there's no automatic/semiautomatic tool for getting this up-to-date deletion may be the better option Prototyperspective (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikimedia Commons βeta

What is Wikimedia Commons βeta? This cat contains only 4 files and I could not reproduce their view or find any info on Wikimedia Commons βeta and the feature(s) displayed in them can not be enabled in the Beta features in Commons preferences. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2019 the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) team of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) launched a set of optional features and the screenshots were of those, perhaps a better title or the categories would be "Wikimedia Commons BETA", but I remember the wiki using the Greek term "βeta". The main page of this wiki could be found here. For whatever reason I put the wrong source links in the files, as they link to the regular version of the Commonswiki. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. But the questions remain largely unresolved. Is there any info page about this like some page on meta? Is this ongoing or abandoned? What about the screenshots that seem to show categories on mobile – will this feature come and is currently already in testing stage? Why hasn't it been implemented by now if these screenshots are from 2019? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the late reply, I actually take screenshots of almost everything I do online and I would've screenshotted the settings page of "Wikimedia Commons βeta", as the screenshots come from a Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile device it was likely either a Microsoft Lumia 950 XL or a Microsoft Lumia 950, my Microsoft archives were uploaded to Microsoft OneDrive and at the time Google Photos had unlimited storage for all devices so I made an additional Google Photos back-up of all images and videos on my laptop and my mother's laptop, this means that I can probably find this on my Google Pixel device's archives, but due to real life circumstances I haven't had the time to look for them. From what I can remember, these features were announced somewhere either at Tech News or the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) pages, as I don't have access to my browser history on Microsoft Internet Explorer Mobile from that period I'll try to find it somewhere. I am not entirely sure, but I think that the βeta features were enabled through the Wikimedia SUL-account settings, but I can't find them now. I'll report back after I've found any actual information on these features. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current events

It would be great if there was a main page tile (also in the Commons Android app) for media about/of current events.
This would make the site far more interesting and be more reasonable and engaging than the current main page tiles (I'm not suggesting to put just one image of a current event there but a small thumbnails of multiple media files with buttons to show more/the next set, each with a category link).
This category clearly needs some work – e.g. the template doesn't exist and it contains just two files. See Portal:Current events. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of Ukraine - square flags

Please merge with "Category:Square flags of Ukraine" as they are both about the same thing. Thanks in advance. 109.79.30.209 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Square flags of Ukraine

Please merge with "Category:Flags of Ukraine - square flags‎" as they are both about the same thing. Thanks in advance. 109.79.30.209 14:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taken with DJI radio-controlled helicopters

1. I don't think "helicopters" is the right term here so this should probably be moved
2. Please make it so videos in any subcats here go into Category:Videos taken with DJI (and maybe this could be configured at the respective template). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Category:DJI radio-controlled helicopters since this CfD applies as well.

Pedantically, unmanned radio-controlled camera quadcopters are a type of helicopters. However I do agree that helicopter is too broad here and that a change need to be made. DJI radio-controlled helicopters is a subcat of Unmanned quadrotors, however I don't like to continue using the term quadrotor since some DJI drones have more than 4 rotors. So we could use something like DJI multirotors and Taken with DJI multirotors. And then have subcategories Pictures taken with DJI multirotors and Videos taken with DJI multirotors. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes sense. I think terms unmanned aerial vehicle and drone should also be considered, especially when considering the modern use of these terms and there may be more accurate variants of these terms. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heading 1

Category:Historic views

Ridiculous category. What on earth does this even mean? "Things that look old to me?" Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images: images and other media should be sorted by date (including year, decade and century) or "History of ...", not by vague concepts as "Historic".

JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the preceding "historical" discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator and previous CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete including all subcategories that follow this format. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there seem to be countless subcategories: Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Historic_views_of. I added cfd notices there. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them and replace with "[location] by [period]" where [period] can be millennium, century, decade, year etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator, I shouldn't close this (especially shouldn't close it early), but this sure looks like a foregone conclusion to me. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a fairly old way of doing subcategories, even if the main category was created just recently. Depending on what people actually need it for, an alternative should be found. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions on this topic settled on the "Place by year/decade/century" format, and I'm inclined to agree. Media can also be subdivided in illustrations and black-and-white photography to set aside older works from modern photography. A category structure being old is not a good reason to keep it. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the "historical images"-question (Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Move_"Historical_images_of"_to_"History_of"), I think it would be consistent with that to just move "Historic views of" to "history of". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between "historic views" and "historical images"? yes indeed. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: Wait another two weeks to see wether there are other opinions (in accordance with Closing a discussion) and then close this disucssion. JopkeB (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI can't see what is "ridiculous" about the term "historic". However, moving these categories in categories of the type "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" would be acceptable. Or then "Rigi railway vies of the steam days".--Gürbetaler (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is ridiculous is that the word is vacuous. My oldest picture a took that is here on Commons was taken in 1966. (I'm old.) Is it "historic"? Are all pictures of the Berlin Wall now "historic"? How about Kurt Cobain or Tupac Shakur? The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption in Port-au-Prince? At what point do images become "historic"? And, for any of these, how does this provide any information not provided by date categories? - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 3 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't really any different if we use "history of" instead. Enhancing999 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I can't see what is "ridiculous" about the term "historic". However, moving these categories in categories of the type "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" would be acceptable. Or then "Rigi railway vies [sic] of the steam days".

Nowadays I support categorizing old/historical images by year/decade/century. So the images of "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" can be categorized into "Rigi railway in the 19th century" and "Rigi railway in the 20th century". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. For a specific subject "20th century" doesn't say a lot. It is a fact that the Berlin wall isn't the same again since Wiedervereinigung. There IS a before and an after. And the Rigibahn saw important changes in 1907 and 1937 and it is useful to subdivide the categories by such important years. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gürbetaler: I could be wrong, but I think you are missing Sbb1413's point. I don't think Sbb is saying Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway would be an invalid category, and that seems to be what you are responding to. But it isn't clear which of two things Sbb is saying. Sbb, are you saying, in effect, that if you have a Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, its images should each also be categorized into Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century or Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century, or are you saying that Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century and Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century should both be parent categories of Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, or are you actually saying something else entirely (including what Gürbetaler seems to have understood)? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I had said that I prefer categorizing things by century/decade/year, but it does not really mean that we won't have categories for specific periods of history. 1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway might be a useful category, covering the railway system using steam locomotives. But it should have a better descriptive name instead of arbitrary years. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are "better descriptive names in your eyes? I'm sorry but sometimes I don't understand where you want to go to. Maybe examples can help. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Sbb would prefer, but if that's the point I'd say something like Category:Rigi Railway in the steam locomotive era. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinon categories like "Rigi railway in the 20th century" are as useless (or even more useless) as "History of Rigi railway". Gürbetaler (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague to the point of meaningless. Of course views taken today can be "historic" (especially if they show some significant event) while an image from 100 years ago may be rather mundane. If "old" is meant, that or some more specific language (such as year, decade, or century) is much better. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we largely agree that a defined time frame is better than words like "historic", "old" or "history of". However, I stick to my point that the time frame must be found in the context of the specific main category but not in a general view of years, decades or centuries. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could come up with an example of what you mean, something tangible we can work off of. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how that issue and this one are related. Assuming we all agree that "historic" is a bad term, which it seems like we do, then there's no reason we can't just get rid of it and then someone can figure out a better alternative for specific images after that. Its not like we are expected to do that on our end for every image in the categories before getting rid of them though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept this and will do my part. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion came up, if the Historic xxx categories should redirect to one of the possibly more specific categories (like Category:Historical trains redirecting to Category:Preserved rail vehicles) or if they should be deleted. A third possibility is a disambiguation. I tried this for Category:Historical locomotives and wonder what be the preferred solution. BTW a similar discussion is here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Historic buildings Gürbetaler (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me Historic views of Bildergalerie Sanssouci, Potsdam is very helpfulOursana (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oursana: I don't think anyone has said we can't have categories like "historic views of [something]". The problem is the abstract "historic views". It's like having a Category:Former things. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems that hasn't been addressed as much is the whole "views" thing. It's ill defined at best, if not completely meaningless at worst. I just went through some of these categories for churches and most of them just contained random images. A few were taken recently, making them not "historical", and quit a lot weren't "views" either. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the word "view" is just a synonym for "image" in most cases. I don't necessarily have a problem with categorizing images by perspective or whatever, but I don't think there should be separate "view" categories that just contain normal images of the subjects. So the point is that there's multiple issues here beyond just the whole "historic" thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Views" is discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Views, so please add your comments there. JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Languages of Bengal

Although Bengali is the primary language of this region, categorizing Category:Bengali language directly in this category would violate COM:OVERCAT, as it is already categorized under Category:Languages of West Bengal, Category:Languages of Bangladesh, and Category:Languages of Tripura. So there's no utility of this region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It currently has three subcategories. What's the issue with these?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic sites

What comes under this category can be subjective. This category is similar to the now-deprecated Category:Historical images (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the images people add can be subjective or that actual subcategories? I don't think there is a link to "Historical images". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 People will categorize whatever they consider a "historic site" under this category, which can be files or subcats. This category should be replaced with Category:Archaeological sites, Category:Cultural heritage monuments or similar, which are indeed officially designated as "historical". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the images can be problematic, not the subcategories of this category as such. Thanks for the clarification. Yes. it happens that people have subjective interpretations of categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intended use of this category? At the very least some sort of definition as a hatnote seems needed. At least it should be restricted to things declared "historic" by some government or official agency. Examples include Category:World Heritage Sites and the USA's Category:National Register of Historic Places. I note that while the second is in a subcategory here, the first is not. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Historic" is to ambiguous. Although Infrogmation makes a valid point about things like World Heritage Sites and items on the National Register of Historic Places, but Category:World Heritage Sites isn't a child of this category and I don't see why Category:National Register of Historic Places inherently needs to be one either. There's plenty of similar categories to this one that they can both go in. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but

Move and populate that cat: A historic site or heritage site is an official location where pieces of political, military, cultural, or social history have been preserved due to their cultural heritage value. Historic sites are usually protected by law, and many have been recognized with official historic status. – not all historic sites are officially recognized historic sites. This cat is about the various (subcategorized) types of official recognition of such sites or the respective sites per each. It could be named e.g. "Officially recognized historic sites" and info that this cat is currently missing many files could be added. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buses not in service

What name format should subcategories use? Would it be all right to use format number 1 below?

Their names are structured in several different ways. See also Category:Trains not in service and Category:Trams not in service.

[Vehicles] in [Location] not in service: I would assume "Buses in Austria not in service‎" aligns the best with the main category "Buses in Austria" and its other similarly named subcategories.
[Location] [vehicles] not in service: I suppose Category:Lisbon trams not in service‎ is an acceptable format.
[Vehicles] not in service of [Location]: I don't think e.g. Category:Buses not in service of Canada works very well.
[Vehicles] not in service in [Location]

Sinigh (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 1 – It aligns best with the parent category and also the Universality Principle, especially "[i]dentical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a 4th possible format, from Category talk:Trams in Finland not in service. Sinigh (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human penises, erect length 25-50 mm

Is this serious? For just one file? Delete both. 200.39.139.4 16:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly delete and upmerge the category. No comment on the file, which should not be a matter for CfD in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the category is consistent with others by size, so "upmerge" seems the wrong strategy. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose upmerging, because Category:Human penis size is identified as a diffusing cat, so images should be in subcats, such as by size-range (the consistent set Enhancing999 notes). However, the one file that was in it was deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Micropenis erect with ruler.jpg, so this category is currently empty and we should delete empty categories by default. However-however, I have disputed that close, so please defer action on this cat until that is resolved as my !vote depends on the outcome there. DMacks (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: that image has now been un-deleted to allow more disussion about its fate. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it has a file (RM has now been closed "keep"). DMacks (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old city maps of Munich (extended to any City maps of)

This is like "Old country map of Germany" and "Old continental maps of Europe".
My suggestion is to rename to "Old maps of Munich", to be in harmony with the other "Old maps of <city in Germany>" Enyavar (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Special:Categories/City maps of should go in general. The ones that aren't about cities should redirect or be moved as Category:City maps. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly, we have Category:City maps of Périgueux and Category:Maps of Périgueux. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now that Category:Maps of Munich has a diagram to show which maps are supposed to go where (but either practice didn't always follow theory, or I don't understand it). It appears is if the "city maps" category might have been supposed for "whole city" maps of Munich, and the boroughs/districts were supposed to go into "old maps of boroughs in Munich", the latter being a mixture of "details of old maps of" and full maps of some districts. This seems to be a rather unique structure that is not observed for any other "maps of city" category I know of. --Enyavar (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting diagram. Too bad it isn't a svg and its creator isn't active any more. I guess ideally there was subcategory for the "entire city" even though these would generally not end up in subcategories.

I still favor upmerging "city maps of" to "maps of" if the category is for a specific city. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. But I'll bring it up with the WikiMuc team, let's see if they agree as well. --Enyavar (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As far as I understand, "city maps" are detail maps of the entire city, as opposed to neighbourhood maps and locator maps. For example, Kolkata Street Map.svg is a city map of Kolkata, while Kolkata map.jpg is a locator map of the city. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, you would have Category:Country maps of India for the entire country, Category:State maps of India for one or more states/territories, and Category:Locator maps of India for the country within a region (Asia, South Asia etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do this here and not for any other topic? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few cases I know where such a category structure is in use, for example Category:Old maps of whole Wales (alone). This category name clearly dictates how large the map frame must be: Partial maps of Wales are not allowed, and neither are maps of England+Wales: Wales, whole and alone. Contrary here, "Old city maps of Munich" does not prescribe the content in the title, and the content was placed accordingly: partial maps, detail maps, cutouts are there besides the old maps of the whole Munich in its proper city walls. If "Munich, whole and alone" is a desired category, it should still be better named, for example "Old maps of Munich (entire city)" and it should be a sub-category of "Old maps of Munich". But as it stands now, all "old maps of..." are considered "old city maps" by default, as are the "old maps of boroughs". --Enyavar (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the use of "city" (or "country") to indicate that the subcategory applies to the entire city. Sample: Category:Politics of the United States and Category:County politics of the United States. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Category:State flag of Bahia and Category:flags of Bahia use "state" to make this difference (Also "National flag" and "flags of"). Contrary to the city maps above, this seems to work out though (plus "state flag" is an actual concept wheres even "city maps" of boroughs are "city maps"). Enhancing999 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMHO, "city" does not primarily indicate that the map relates to an entire city, as opposed to neighbourhood, but that it is a specific type of a map. City maps (at least this is true for the German correspondent "Stadtplan") generally show streets, squares, built areas, green areas, waterbodies etc., sometimes also public buildings, churches, castles, museums etc. In this sense, thematical maps like this one are not city maps. City maps are thus a specific subtype of maps relating to a city, so that a Category:City maps of Munich, for example, is useful as a subcategory of the Category:Maps of Munich. --Bjs (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there seems to be a misunderstanding, please check Category:Old maps of Munich which is a redirect. As of right now, it is presumed that any "Old maps of Munich" are automatically "Old city maps of Munich". That is contrary to the opinion you offered above. --Enyavar (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been made by an IP some time ago and does not make sense. Truly, most of the Maps included there are city maps in the sense I indicated above, but there are also categories that imho ar no maps at all, but old views of Munich. Old maps of Munich should be an intermediate category between Old city maps of Munich and Maps of Munich. The category tree generally is a bit confuse, but if Maps of Munich is subdivided into categories by map type, a category for the map type "city map" should remain. (unsigned edit by Bjs)

Sorry to correct you, but Chumwa (who created the current structure and even made the diagram) is not an IP. On the subject matter: your proposal is an alternative to the "upmerging" proposed by Enhancing. I don't favor either of these practical solutions. --Enyavar (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stagecoach in Oxfordshire

An unregistered user, 217.46.140.107, has emptied this category; moving every file to Category:Stagecoach West. This is anachronistic, as until 2021 Stagecoach in Oxfordshire was a separate operating company; the files that were in this category are a record of its history; and the Wikipedia article about Stagecoach in Oxfordshire still links here. I have reverted a few of the files, but it would be laborious to revert hundreds of them individually. Every file that 217.46.140.107 has moved to Category:Stagecoach West should be returned en bloc. Motacilla (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some like to re-write history. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Motacilla and Enhancing999: I can do that en bloc using Commons:Cat-a-lot. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Enhancing999. I have never used Cat-a-lot. I imagine I could learn how to use it. However, at present I am hard-pressed by matters outside Wikimedia Commons, so I am most grateful for your offer to do it!

The sub-category "Category:Stagecoach Gold (Stagecoach in Oxfordshire)" has also been emptied, and the entire sub-category "Category:Oxford Tube (bus route)" has been placed under Stagecoach West. The Oxford Tube should either be a sub-category of both "Category:Stagecoach in Oxfordshire" and "Category:Stagecoach West", or perhaps divided into two sub-categories: one each for images created before and after February 2021.

Thankyou for your help! Motacilla (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail substitute bus transport

The subcats are named either "rail substitute bus transport" or "rail replacement buses". The current category name is possibly for the parent category Category:Rail substitute transport. However, I think "rail replacement bus transport" is more common than "rail substitute bus transport", regardless of ENGVAR. So the Universality Principle applies. If not, we should wait until the discussion at Commons talk:Categories ends. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teenagers in Vietnam

Category:Teenagers in Vietnam AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create the category, since "teenagers in Vietnam" may refer to teenagers located in Vietnam, regardless of nationality. Whereas Category:Teenagers of Vietnam is a general category for teenagers somehow associated with Vietnam (Vietnamese citizens, teenagers of other nationalities in Vietnam etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnVuong1222004 (7) Why delete a valid redirect targetting to the correct name? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In" refers to location (eg where the photo was taken), "Of" refers to origin or place of residence (eg, where a person is from or naturalized to). The two do not mean the same thing and one should not be redirected to the other. Having both can sometimes be useful (eg Category:People in New York City and Category:People of New York City) if we have media for both respective categories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mukah Iskandirov

Rename to "Mukash" Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like many of the categories made on the MPs are not made by an actual Kazakh speaker. Some of the naming is a mess. I request that Category:Galimgyan Eleyov is also removed. Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kersti Nebelsiek - Gerhard-Holten-Hütte, Osterbachtal, Tauberseck, Mühlbach, Untermühle in Knickhagen, Gänseberg, Krummbachtal (15. und 17. November 2022)

This category was mentioned in [14]. I think the name of the subcategory shouldn't be a list of all to places depicted, even if it's a user category. A user gallery with the same name may be possible. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see absolutely no reason to change the category name and I see abslutely no use for a gallery with this name. Such a gallery page would be too much work. Kersti (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos of debaters

should this be kept given that it misses nearly all files? Prototyperspective (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I am not sure what you mean by "misses nearly all files". Do you mean "includes almost no files" or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are many videos of "debaters" on WMC but they aren't included there. It's unclear and may be unreasonable to refer to people as "debaters" and in any case a "Videos of debates" cat would make more sense. Either way it's not the case that there are nearly no files of this type on WMC, the category contains only an arbitrary one. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If RS calls them debaters is there really an issue? Trade (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I agree with what Omphalographer said below. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There's a couple of intersecting issues here:

A "debater" is not a well-defined category of person. Notable people who have engaged in debates can usually be described in some more specific way, e.g. "philosophers", "politicians", "YouTube personalities", etc.
Videos and other media of debates (not "debaters") are better categorized based on their participants or content than their format, e.g. Category:Debates about religion, Category:Philosophical debates, Category:US presidential debates, etc.
Most videos of podcast-style debates on YouTube have negligible educational value and should not be imported to Commons. (This is a separate issue from the category itself, but is worth keeping in mind.)

Omphalographer (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Floor of the Senado Federal do Brasil

There are now some 65000 files in this category and its subcategories. Maybe some or all of ca. 4500 should be in Category:Ulysses Guimarães plenary chamber (of the Chamber of Deputies): [15]. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 That category should not even exist, please see here. The stubbornness of a single editor in keeping that aberration as a name blocked its normal development, causing that situation. Of course it has not anything to do with "Floors", it's just a Plenary chamber. If someone manages to delete this nonsense, please kill it with fire so it can't come back. Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Category:Floor of the Senado Federal do Brasil? I agree that the category name isn't ideal, but I'm not really sure which alternative to suggest. At least, I tried to add a description to define its scope. Maybe we can first agree on that and later determine the name? I think we should have separate categories for the interior of each plenary "room".

I wasn't aware of that discussion of 2020 (will try to read it in more detail later). Enhancing999 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999 From what I recall it was supposed to be the main chamber, what is usually called the plenary chamber. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tm: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pottery of Soudan

Needs parent categories. Does this refer to present day Sudan, South Sudan, or Mali? Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PNG special or fictional flags

Special or fictional" no es un buen modo de categorizar. 186.172.32.233 01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discutir abajo en la mayor categoria por favor. 186.172.32.233 01:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally categorize files based on their format outside of SVGs.

Merge up to Category:Special or fictional flags, and merge the child categories to their likewise format-agnostic counterparts. The parent category is a bit of a messy catch-all in its own right, but at least it contains the mess to one category. Omphalographer (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Special or fictional flags

"Special or fictional" no es un buen modo de categorizar. 186.172.32.233 01:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split. Probably should be split into "Fictional flags"; if the name "special flags" is kept for other things a hatnote explaining the definition of "special" in this context would be appropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear that the category is intended for flags related to fiction, not flags which were made up by the uploader: how about "Flags from works of fiction"? Omphalographer (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Santo Domingo de Guzmán, Dominican Republic

User:RZuo remarked elswhere that "de Guzmán" here may be strictly historical, not the present name, in which case this should be renamed. Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Heyden family (Westphalia)

Bitte wieder löschen, es gibt schon eine Kategorie: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_the_House_of_Heiden GerritR (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unexpected twist

I don't understand what this category is intended for. (Possibly things held upside down, judging by the categories it's in, but contradicted by the images that's in it.) I asked its creator on July 28 (Category talk:Unexpected twist), but no response so far. Suggest delete. Sinigh (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google translates the Japanese description as "reverse hand", possibly referring to the reverse grip being used on an object in each photo - but this seems like a weirdly specific detail to categorize on. Omphalographer (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to rename this category.

Why did I named in 2017, like this category-name...It's probably mistranslation. Sorry.

What I'd like to say is "Reverse grip",

from the concept of Horizontal bar (png) --Benzoyl (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! "Reverse grip" is used similarly in weight training as well. But doesn't that refer to objects that remain oriented the same way? It doesn't seem like the objects in this category and the images below are "gripped" in that sense, since both the "grip" and the orientation of the object itself change with the orientation of the hand, whereas horizontal bars and weight-lifting equipment need to be "regripped" for the grip to change. Sinigh (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Nomal grip
(2) Reverse grip
(3) about 90°

I think "(2) Reverse grip" is rare case. = Contrastingly Mostly (3). Therefore this category have a necessity.

Exempli gratia "How to Hold the Steering Wheel" (jpg - "Boss Grip?") --Benzoyl (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But a steering wheel is attached to the car. You don't "grip" a microphone in that sense; instead, the microphone itself is oriented differently depending on how you happen to move your hand. That's not what happens with horizontal bars and steering wheels. Sinigh (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holztafelbild

I do not understand the scope of this category, should go together with Paintings on wood Oursana (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Paintings on wood does not fit with the wikidata about "painting made on an easel or other portable support”. I suggest to create a wikidata “Paintings on wood” and move the content of Category:Holztafelbild to the category “Paintings on wood”. Wouter (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgian buildings out of Georgia

Delete We not not categorise things by what they are not. Where would it stop? "Georgian buildings not in the moon"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — We generally don't create categories based on Boolean logic. But we have categories like Category:American culture abroad, which is similar to the nominated category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other "Xian buildings out of X" category in Commons? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1891 maps of Vietnam

Why is this category being deleted? It was used for dozens of maps and these are now in a much less specific category. Why? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy justification of "Incorrect name" makes no sense, the vast majority of images moved to the 1890's category were in this category. If someone is specifically looking for 1891 maps of Viet-Nam then a specific category is much better for searching something than a vague "1890's" category, especially since administrative boundaries change frequently and searching by specific year is much better than by decade, especially since there are annual maps that could be found on Gallica, it makes very little sense to move maps from easily searchable categories on much more broadly-defined less specific categories. I don't think that re-users will appreciate having to go through more files to look for what they want. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ping or notify whoever is involved. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pte A. J. Davis Memorial, Appleford

Why has a category been created for one unremarkable brass plaque? This is over-categorisation. Motacilla (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cinema events

What's the difference between this category and its subcategory Category:Film events? For example, why do Category:Film premieres, Category:Film festivals, Category:Film awards belong here and not in Category:Film events?

Shouldn't "Cinema events" and "Film events" be merged, because how could the former not include the latter?

Sinigh (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is not strictly included: films/movies can be documentary/scientific/educative or for training people to some skills, or video records of musical, theater, music, and other live cultural performance, or historic/sportive/political/social/religious/news events. Cinema is narrative, but also includes animations, which are not strictly films/movies, with a creative mounting and normally fiction (even if they are inspired by real facts, they are usually not intended to give a truth but leave place for imagination or fabricated and recreated/simulated scenes and to what authors, producers, directors, actors, artists and various other skilled workers wanted to perform and show. Film events and cinema events are however frequently mixed in festivals showing multiple genres). The first cinema movies were in fact news report for demonstrating new technologies and real catastrophes, rapidly they were used for political propaganda, with invented or voluntarily biased narrations with fictive characters or in fictive time or fictive and decorated places. verdy_p (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps you were making a distinction between cinema and video in general at first, but then it became a little difficult to follow. For example, who says that only the concept of cinema, and not film, includes animation? And what does "Cinema is narrative, but also includes animations" mean, that animation isn't narrative? I doubt you will find broad consensus for such distinctions, and more importantly, I don't see how they are useful here. Sinigh (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film

This category currently has the description "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form (cinema), and the motion picture industry", but it also has Category:Films and is itself in Category:Cinema rather than encompassing it.

Wouldn't one category be enough and make more sense? For example, enwiki only has Category:Film, with Category:Cinema redirecting there.

Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps

A while back we looked into the larger coordinates category and noticed that we could avoid using categories for their usecases.[16]
Do we still need this? Is there are particular usecase that couldn't be handled with Category:Pages with coordinates? That category should soon include all these as well [17]. Once this is true, I'd deleted this one. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: It's useful to know which categories and galleries have coordinates that are being added separately from the Infobox, since ideally all coordinates on categories and galleries should just be on Wikidata now. I think we still need the separation of categories for that purpose. In particular, Category:Pages with coordinates should *not* include coordinates added by the Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MediaWiki can differentiate between {{Wikidata Infobox}} and {{Object location}} when adding Category:Pages with coordinates. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thinking is based on which facts? Andres Ollino (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the fact that I don't know which parameter it would be. Maybe you have some knowledge that contradicts this? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: I was wondering if your usecase was this (categories with coordinates and infobox, but not in "Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps"). I excepted this to find {{Object location}} but no coordinates in the infobox. Oddly it finds Category:Castle Ellis Bridge which has coordinates in the infobox, but no category. Seems someone made some manipulation with the infobox parameters.Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there are currently about 350 such categories: [18]. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of it, but there's also the case of pages without the infobox at all, but there are coordinates. The odd one is because trackingcats has been set, so the infobox doesn't add tracking categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "pages without the infobox at all, but there are coordinates" are a usecase for "Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps". Can you list those you actually need so we can check if the category is still needed. Per phab:T362494#9869450/phab:T343131, I think we shouldn't have large categories in cases where these can be handled by other means and, as for any maintenance category, there should be a clear usecase. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Category:Pages with maps is the one I was looking for, since that currently catches cases where maps are added but not by the infobox. Those should probably have Wikidata items created for them, where they don't already exist and are just unlinked to Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages with maps in process of being renamed to Category:Pages with coordinates.

Do we still need Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps or can we delete it? If it's needed, can we edit the category description to explain its use cases? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a shame. It was useful to have separate categories for uses of templates like {{Location}} and those of {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I guess this search will do the job (slightly modified from yours above), but I think that requires both Category:Pages with coordinates and Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: Have revised Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps accordingly, is that sufficient to justify keeping this category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the usecase "For categories with coordinates that do not yet have Wikidata items", the following should be sufficient: "Special:Search/Category: hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates" -hastemplate:"Wikidata Infobox"

The usecase: "has Wikidata items, but no coordinates at Wikidata" seems the only one that needs this category. It has problems with cases like "Castle Ellis Bridge" mentioned above. Maybe there is a better solution for that, but until it's found, I'd keep this category. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In line with Category:Pages with coordinates, can we rename this to Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with coordinates? Enhancing999 (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep this at "with maps" since that is what is most visible in the infobox, and I'd rather not recat 2m+ categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Kriegelstein von Sternfeld family

Sollte gelöscht werden, ersetzt durch https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Kriegelstein_Edle_von_Sternfeld_family; siehe dazu auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegelstein_von_Sternfeld; es gibt zwei Familien ähnlichen Namens GerritR (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Skim (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wolayita people

Duplicate , This category is duplicate of Category:Welayta people. Discuss on merger of the two categories. Malaalaa (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may merge it. Don't worry about it. Sintegrity (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People performing sexual activity

I don't think this topic requires the normal diffusion by age/gender that is used in most topics, since as far as I am aware, any images of children here would violate legal limitations. Of course, since we don't have those images, it is not controversial to not have the children categories, but I bring it up here because it seems to also obviate the need for the adult categories as there is no need to diffuse by child/adult here. There are two ways to do this so I'm wondering which of the two (or something else) is a better implementation of the Hierarchic Principle and Universality Principle:

A	B
Eliminate diffusion by child/adult via upmerge to non-diffused parent	Eliminate diffusion by child/adult via deletion of parent categories
Category:People performing sexual activity ~~Category:Adult humans performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Men performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Women performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Children performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Boys performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Girls performing sexual activity~~ Category:Female humans performing sexual activity ~~Category:Girls performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Women performing sexual activity~~ Category:Male humans performing sexual activity ~~Category:Boys performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Men performing sexual activity~~	~~Category:People performing sexual activity~~ Category:Adult humans performing sexual activity Category:Men performing sexual activity Category:Women performing sexual activity ~~Category:Children performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Boys performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Girls performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Female humans performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Girls performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Women performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Male humans performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Boys performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Men performing sexual activity~~
resulting in:	resulting in:
Category:People performing sexual activity Category:Female humans performing sexual activity Category:Male humans performing sexual activity	Category:Adult humans performing sexual activity Category:Men performing sexual activity Category:Women performing sexual activity
A	B

This would of course percolate down through subs and apply to other genders as well.

I would propose (B) for starters as its seems more compliant with the Simplicity Principle and makes it more obvious that images should be limited to adults. Josh (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B this is clearly more sensible and the W:WP:COMMONNAME of the subject, but it should just be People performing sexual activity also per simplicity principle. If you think uploading images of children performing sexual activity is acceptable in the first place then I think that’s covered by the “wtf is wrong with you” principle. Dronebogus (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner:

Support per Dronebogus. Currently most people categories have children, men, women as subcats. Since child sex is a crime in almost all countries of the world (AFAIK), ~~men and women can be used for "male humans" and "female humans" respectively. So I support the following option:~~

C
Category:People performing sexual activity ~~Category:Adult humans performing sexual activity~~ Category:Men performing sexual activity Category:Women performing sexual activity ~~Category:Children performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Boys performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Girls performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Female humans performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Girls performing sexual activity~~ Category:Women performing sexual activity ~~Category:Male humans performing sexual activity~~ ~~Category:Boys performing sexual activity~~ Category:Men performing sexual activity
Result
Category:People performing sexual activity Category:Men performing sexual activity Category:Women performing sexual activity
C

This still follows the Hierarchic Principle, as men and women are subtypes of people. The Universality Principle may not hold since "men" and "male humans" are treated as synonyms for this category structure. However, the global criminalization of child sex is a valid reason for the contrary, and follows the spirit of meta:IAR, which is applicable for all Wikimedia wikis, not just Wikipedia. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sbb1413's proposal C. Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should. Omphalographer (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should.

That's a different matter altogether. My proposal is not to replace "humans" with "people" but to eliminate the adult/child distinction in the subcats of Category:People performing sexual activity. The elimination is necessary, since we don't have Category:Children performing sexual activity due to the worldwide criminalization of child sex. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I mean that your proposal differs from proposals A and B above in that it avoids the stilted "[adjective] humans" phrasing for all three categories. Omphalographer (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer, there is a discussion underway to change 'humans' to 'people'. If that is adopted, these categories will be renamed as a result. This proposal is really about the structure of these categories, not whether they should use 'humans' or 'people'. Josh (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Option C, as it is disjointed, in that it mixes age-specific and non-age-specific categorization. "People" is not diffused by age, but "Men" and "Women" are. If the argument is that 'adults' is too specific and 'people' will do, then it would stand to reason that 'men' and 'women' are too specific and simply 'male' and 'female' are sufficient to diffuse by gender. If on the other hand, we want to be clear that only adult contents are permitted, and thus use 'men' and 'women', then the parent should likewise be 'adults'. Mixing the two leads to a disjointed hierarchy and doing so just because this or that category name might sound more 'natural' is not a strong argument. If a particular category's name is a problem, let's discuss an improvement, but breaking the logical hierarchy to avoid using a category with a name you don't like isn't a good answer. Josh (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~If I generalize my proposal to all activities limited to specific age groups, the generalized proposal will be as follows:~~

~~If the activity is restricted to children, the main category should be called "children <activity>" with boys and girls as subcats.~~

~~If the activity is restricted to adults, the main category should be called "people <activity>" with men and women as subcats.~~

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I no longer support my proposal. Instead, I support Joshbaumgartner's options 1 and 2. See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Male humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I put the cart before the horse by proposing outcomes, and it is best to first answer the basic question that prompted me to create this CfD in the first place:

When dealing with a topic for which no contents of children are expected/permitted, should we:

A: Simply use the basic 'people' categories without diffusion by adult/child, which is the best implementation of the Simplicity Principle, but may give the false impression that depictions of children are permitted.
B: Specifically use 'adult' categories, despite the lack of analogous 'child' categories, which is the best implementation of the Selectivity Principle, in that it is clear that depictions of children are not permitted.

@Sbb1413 and Omphalographer: perhaps we can start with answering this and circle back to the detail level once we have a clear overall picture? Josh (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Option B seems to be a good choice considering pedophilia is a crime worldwide. But we shouldn't be the authority to determine if pedophilic media are allowed or not. If we have such media, we can recreate Category:People performing sexual activity to categorize them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 If by we you mean CfD participants, I agree. My proposal was not made to create such a prohibition, but instead to create an appropriate structure for topics within which such a prohibition is already policy. "We" as the Commons community certainly do need to have a clear policy on this. WMF is a US-based organization and must comply with US law regarding content, and content which violates US law is automatically out of scope and in fact uploading such files is a basic terms of use violation. Since the project is international in scope, we should be clear about those few areas where US law may force us to prohibit content which may otherwise not have violated our policies, especially since US and international law and custom often diverge. Of course, you are correct that if it is deemed permissible, then of course the normal people structure including adult/child diffusion can be implemented, though in this specific case, I would not lend a hand to curating such content. Josh (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Women Theologians

I believe that a more standard name for this would be Category:Female theologians from Africa. Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious! Delete the uncalled for discussion and move the category. 186.172.31.142 01:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sons (offspring)

Needless disambiguator, Category:Sons redirects to this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an explanation at Category_talk:Sons_(offspring). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why Category:Sons redirect to this category? It should be a dab page, according to the discussions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, no others have files? It assures that "sons" isn't used for "sounds". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other uses at en:Sons (disambiguation) but none look significant and many would probably not have any or many files here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So either covert base name to DAB or move this to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andeloseko museoa

I see no currency for this name. I propose a move to the English-language Category:Andelos Archaeological Museum, or at least the Euskara (Basque) or possibly Category:Andeloseko Museo Arkeologikoa, using a name that has some currency. Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name in English should be "Archaeological Museum of Andelos", because Andelos is the name of the ancient roman period city, not the name of the museum. We may change Andeloseko museoa into "Archaeological Museum of Andelos" and Yacimiento de Andelos‎ into "Archaeological Site of Andelos" Suna no onna (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suna no onna: Sorry, I see I didn't put in a specific English-language name when I wrote this. [Later: well, I did, somehow the comment was messed up. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)] I meant to propose Category:Andelos Archaeological Museum per https://www.spain.info/en/places-of-interest/andelos-archaeological-museum/ and https://whichmuseum.com/museum/andelos-archaeological-museum-mendigorria-35830, though Category:Archaeological Museum of Andelos would be acceptable, used at https://visitnavarra.info/visitnavarra/en/ruinas-romanas-de-andelos/, https://www.turismoruralnavarra.com/en/listado/ciudad-romana-de-andelos-2/. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the official tourism website of the Government of Navarre, you can see "Andelosko Museo Arkeologikoa" Suna no onna (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that is the Euskara name, I gave that above. I would favor an English-language name here. Are you saying you favor Euskara and, if so, why? - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bohdan Melnychuk

Considering Category:Bohdan Melnychuk (writer and local historian), I feel like this should get a disambiguation as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ramesses XIII (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Residential buildings

There was a discussion on this category 12 years ago at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Residential buildings. The nominator Ghouston closed the discussion without any consensus. There are still problems with categories like Category:Residential buildings and Category:Housing, and their relations with Category:Accommodation buildings and Category:Accommodations respectively. I had created Category:Residences in line with the Category:Accommodation buildings/Category:Accommodations distinction. Old and new users should discuss on this matter. Pinging @Skeezix1000: as they were the only other participant in the old discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is your question? Or do you have a proposal? How would you like to have the category structure? JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kindergarten in England

none of them are called kindergartens. They are called nurseries. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the name as it is, per the Universality Principle. You can add a description using {{En-gb}} to mention that the items listed in this category are called "nurseries" in England, although they function as kindergartens. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several definitions of the term wikt:nursery, some of which are also mentioned at Category:Nurseries. The use of the term "nursery" to mean kindergarten is specific to the UK, so there's no need to rename this category to "nurseries in England". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: After looking through the subcats of Category:Early childhood education, I have found four types of early childhood education institutions:

These categories should be fixed in order to determine whether we can rename the nominated category to "nusery schools". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the UK these are much the same thing. They arent different types, at least not these days. So they probably need to be merged as far as the UK is concerned. The regime is largely defined by Ofsted. I guess things will be different in other countries, and we may need to have different parent categories for different countries if we think the regimes are significantly different. Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: these categories need good descriptions, mentioning their differences, anyway:

what is the goal of the term (for example: just childcare during the parents' working hours, or teaching little children something, like being sociable, learning the language better, prepare for primary school);
for what age are the terms: babies, toddlers, age 4-6, or whatever.

Though there might be a lot of differences around the world, perhaps we can create a category structures that will fit to a lot of countries. JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the UK there are really no differences corresponding to these categories. The names are just branding. These days they are all usually called nurseries for official purposes- though that is really rather too ambiguous to be used as a category. As far as I know they generally take children from birth to 4 or 5. There is structured play, but not teaching. So any of these terms could be used, but I think we should use the same term for all of them. I dont know what happens in other countries, because these things have to relate to the schools. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nursery school categories There are assertions made above with no evidence and no obvious basis in truth. I was invited here after restoring Category:Nursery schools in the United Kingdom to an article about the under-5 part of a bona fide; educational establishment; a nursery school. It is not a "Child day care centre". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for all the UK articles to be under Nursery schools. What I dont want is numerous categories for what is essentially the same sort of establishments. Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "essentially the same". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of that? In UK they are all regulated by Ofsted to the same criteria, and subsidised by the government. They all have to provide childcare during working hours, and teach little children being sociable, learning the language better, and prepare for primary school Different titles are just branding. They all run from birth to 5. Maybe that is not true in other countries, so we may need to do different countries differently. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constructions

What's the difference between Category:Construction and Category:Constructions? I think Category:Construction is for the subfield of civil engineering, while Category:Constructions is for individual instances of construction. If so, their parent categories should be rectified. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know:

Construction (without the s) is for the proces of building a structure.
Constructions (with a s) is for how a structure, or part of it, is (exactly) put together.

But I am not a civil engineer. JopkeB (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: Although I'm an engineering student, I don't study civil engineering. There are two Wikidata items on construction (construction (Q385378) and construction (Q3875186)). The first one is the "economic activity that consists of the building or assembling of a building or infrastructure", and the second one is the "process of the building or assembling of a building or infrastructure". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess there are at least two meanings of the word "Construction" (without the s):

The economic sector that is building structures. I think Category:Construction industry covers this, but that has another Wikidata item (construction industry (Q13405640)). Wikidata item bouw (Q385378) has only two Wikipedia pages; see also the section "said to be the same as" in this item (equal to three other concepts, including bouw (Q3875186)) and construction industry (Q13405640)). So I think we can ignore this Wikidata item in Commons and use Category:Construction industry instead.
The proces of building structures, Category:Construction.

JopkeB (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude women with masks

Should nude people wearing masks be considered partially nude? If so, this category should be renamed to Category:Partially nude women with masks. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Joshbaumgartner since he has worked on nudity-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nude people with hats

Should nude people wearing hats be considered partially nude? If so, then merge Category:Nude people with hats and Category:Nude or partially nude people with hats to Category:Partially nude people with hats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Joshbaumgartner since he has worked on nudity-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 This is a fair question, and I think this is part of the broader discussion currently happening at Commons:Nudity. Our exact definition of what is a depiction of nudity is ill-defined currently, and that discussion aims to refine that definition. I think this particular CfD will be answered by that conclusion, so I would hope that conversation can remain focused there for now. We can of course revisit this specific instance if that is not the case. I do think the question of whether things such as hats, gloves, shoes, etc. are clothing in so far as determining nudity state is an important detail that I will look to include in the results of the current discussion. Josh (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Structure of the Earth

Shouldn't this be moved to Internal structure of Earth? It is linked to that Wikidata item / Wikipedia article. Alternatively, a new subcategory could be created and then the Wikidata item be linked from there. Moreover, the categories also need checking – for example not all of these are "Tectonics diagrams" so this cat would need to be moved to some subcategory. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Letterboxes in Ipswich

Should be called Postboxes Rathfelder (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, after looking up the difference between letterboxes and postboxes. --rimshot^talk 20:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Interior

What is the difference between this cat and its subcat Oursana (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Merge. JopkeB (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a deliberate choice [19] by @Warburg1866 Enhancing999 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most files I merged into Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Interior - Historic, the rest 20 files > to this cat.

So this is solvedOursana (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "historic [images]" is being retired.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sculpturing

Isn't the word "Sculpting"? Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — Both words are attested in Dictionary.com (sculpt and sculpture (verb)), with similar definitions. Same for Wiktionary (wikt:sculpting and wikt:sculpturing). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows 216,000,000 hits for "sculpting" vs. 1,620,000 for "sculpturing". That is more than a 100-to-1 ratio. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: So we have to rename the main category as well as the 37 "by country" subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so.

Probably a different admin (not me) should make a final determination here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

37?! Gosh, you only have to erase two letters. 186.174.179.47 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you have to delete the two letters from all 37 categories under Category:Sculpturing by country. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's difficult. We don't have a mass rename tool for categories, but it can probably get done in 15 minutes or so. The only reason I am not closing it myself is that Sbb1413 seems at least slightly skeptical on whether this is desirable, and as the person who nominated it for the move I am literally the last admin who should make a determination here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intangible cultural heritage in Finland

Changed name - obsolete - ready to be removed Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drinking fountains for horses in England

should merge with Category:Horse troughs in England Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drinking fountains for horses in the United Kingdom

should merge with Category:Horse troughs in the United Kingdom Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hands just placing

What is the purpose of this category? See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Unexpected twist. Sinigh (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, The situation of these hands "not too tense". --Benzoyl (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so hands lightly touching things? Perhaps more specific categories would be more useful? Like "hands resting on objects". Sinigh (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys continue making "just placing" type of categorization and I can foresee the penis and "nude or partially nude" crew of Commons adding more and more "unimaginable" new ones to their already existing wealthy collection of so-called erotic categories. p.e: Category:Male human penis just placing... Oh Lord! 186.174.179.47 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Đường Kách Mệnh

How does this differ from Category:The Revolutionary Road? Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Preschools

Currently, we have four types of educational institutions that provide education to early children:

These are categorized separately under Category:Early childhood education without an umbrella term covering all four. These four types of educational institutions need proper definitions for proper categorization. I propose the following (I love making a tabular proposal like Joshbaumgartner):

Category	Definition
Category:Preschools	All types of educational institutions providing early childhood education before the commencement of school education.
Category:Kindergarten‎	Subtype of preschools providing playing-based education. The name should be plural.
Category:Pre-kindergartens	Subtype of preschools arranging education programs for children before kindergarten.
Category:Nursery schools	The British (and Commonwealth) term for preschools, which should be merged to Category:Preschools.

Feel free to share opinions on my proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: I agree with the problem and you made a good start. I would like to add:

to make the overview more complete: Category:Child day care centers - for the care of young children (babies and toddlers) during daytime, when their parents are working or studying; perhaps this category also needs another parent, like Category:Child welfare facilities (the same as Preschools);
ages or indications of ages, like
- preschool: usually up to ± 6 years
- Kindergartens: usually for children from 4-6 years
- Pre-kindergartens: usually for toddlers (2-3 years)

JopkeB (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support @JopkeB, @Sbb1413 I agree with that outline (yes, I do find a nice tabular format can make it easy to digest). I am not an expert at early childhood education, but the categories seem okay. You are right that kindergartens should be plural. As far as day care centers, I think these are a different thing. Preschools are educational institutions, but strictly speaking, day care centers are not (though good ones should have educational themes in their activities and such), so I think the idea of using Category:Child welfare facilities as a parent for all of these is a good plan. Josh (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously merge it to here. It is basically an extension of the former. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and Joshbaumgartner: I found a category discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/07/Category:Kindergarten, and there are two arguments against pluralizing the category Category:Kindergarten, which I'm debunking here:

Argument: Auntof6 said, "Kindergarten in English can be either a countable or noncountable noun, as well as an adjective, just like the word school, so it doesn't necessarily need to be plural."
Counterargument: The category Category:Schools is in plural, and if you compare "kindergarten" with "school", the former should be in plural as well, no matter whether the term is countable or not.
Argument: Evil Sith Lord said, "Category:Kindergarten should definitely not be moved to Category:Kindergartens because it contains media for many different topics related to kindergarten, not just pictures of schools that contain only kindergarten."
Counterargument: If there need to make a distinction between kindergarten topics and individual kindergartens, you can have both Category:Kindergarten and Category:Kindergartens coexisting. This is similar to the categories Category:Homo sapiens and Category:People, the fomer for human topics and the latter for individual humans.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Good research. If it is countable, it should be plural, including terms that can alternatively be used as non-countable. As for differentiating between topics and individuals, that isn't something we generally create separate categories for. Just put both 'categories about the topic' and 'categories for instances of the topic' in the main topic category. Having Kindergarten for general topics about kindergarten and Kindergartens for individual kindergartens is not needed--for Commons categories, we can simply put all into Kindergartens. Josh (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need an umbrella term covering all the institutions. There isnt very much to differentiate them as far as the terms are concerned. It is more that different terms are used in different places. Pre-kindergarten seems only to be used in the USA, and not very much there. I think Nursery schools is the best umbrella term, but I dont have strong views about that. I just think all these institutions for young children should be categorised together by geography, even if the terms vary for different countries, or even within countries. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aliran Penghayat Kepercayaan terhadap Tuhan Yang Maha Esa

Qué dice? 186.173.183.246 12:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

all files are also in Category:Paguyuban Ngolah Rasa Tri Soka. I guess this can be deleted as redundant.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CW Television Network logos

Category created because of Cut-paste-move John123521 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elderly

What's the difference between this category and Category:Old people? Split it between Category:Old people and Category:Human old age. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Category:Human old age to cover the general concept of "old age" in human life, so that Category:Old people can be used specifically for old individuals. I think Category:Elderly is already covering what Category:Human old age is supposed to cover, but with a misleading name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johnny Cash Music

What is the scope of this category? Why is "Music" capitalized (is "Johnny Cash Music" a proper noun)? Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kechoveli street,

Требуется удаление, категория не актуальна Well-read MountainMan (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{bad name|Kechoveli street}}

Ideally, I would also add the locality to Category:Kechoveli street: Category:Kechoveli street, Gyumri or Category:Kechoveli street (Gyumri) Enhancing999 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coins of UN member states

Upmerge to Category:Coins by country of origin, since most countries are UN members. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Coins by country of origin because being a UN member state has no effect on a country's coins. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Centuries by country

Is "by country" here referring to current countries, the countries of that time, or both? This question is similar to the one raised on the CFD of Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both, but only if applicable.

Going by examples: Category:Poland in the 16th century BC clearly refers to the current extent: such categories are all about archeological artifacts etc. As Poland did not exist back then, our modern arbitrary borders are mostly to distinguish one prehistoric region from the other.

On the contrary, Category:Strasbourg in the 16th century is currently only part of Category:France in the 16th century. I would argue that Strasbourg (as a main German book publishing center and large Free Imperial City of the HRE) should also belong to Category:Germany in the 16th century as well. Similar cases apply to Wroclaw, Istanbul, Lviv, Los Angeles, Valletta...

Another case is Category:United Kingdom in the 10th century, which looks at first like a clear case of the first example. As the UK did not exist back then, I would prefer to use that category as the container for the contemporary countries: Category:England in the 10th century, Wales etc. I would also argue that if we go back even further, we should rather apply Category:Roman Britain in the 3rd century etc.

As a result I'd favor to categorize into both: Contemporary (if applicable) AND current countries, although like UK+England, cont. and curr. may be child-nodes of each other instead of sibling-nodes like France+Germany. In many other cases the contemporary countries are extinct and may not even have a category: I see no need to slavishly reproduce "centuries by <historic country>", unless there is enough content and need: that is what I mean with "if applicable". --Enyavar (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Enyavar that it is both, if they are applicable. Josh (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar and Joshbaumgartner: Category:1871 in Pakistan redirects to Category:1871 in India, since Pakistan didn't exist back then and the area was part of India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it were just one case, I would suggest just changing it without much ado, but looking at Category:Pakistan in the 1860s up to the 1940s, this appears to be purposefully created by that IP. --Enyavar (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (PS: If my opinion was asked here, I'd disagree with the reasoning, because the country of India also didn't exist back then: the British Raj did.)[reply]

One other case which Enyavar didn't mention: Finland in the 1540s is categorized under Sweden, while Finland in the 1820s is categorized under Russia. --Orijentolog (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a different case than Strasbourg/Alsace because Alsace never gained independece from it's two neighbor countries. I wasn't aware of Finland's categorization as you mention it here, but historically it makes sense. I could also name you Occitany, Illyria, Dalmatia, Silesia, Saxony, Moravia, Galicia, Pomerania, Wallachia, as some other historical countries/regions that are not nations today but could have been. They are historical territories, though. Finland is one such territory that gained independence, but until the 1920s it was part of the Swedish and later Russian empires. I don't see anything wrong with applying the historical correct categories to that content: "Category:Moravia in the 17th century" is legit, although it should have more than just a single file. As it is, people purposefully categorize stuff in the way it makes sense to them, and the results are the categories as we currently find them. If regions have consistent historical names, we should use these names, and that means to categorize with both the contemporary and the current nations that a region is/was part of. This is not a perfect system as it runs into various challenges with pre-colonial Africa+America (see the "16th-century USA"-CfD that was mentioned in the OP) or with ancient+classic Eurasia; but I can't see how we would be able to solve these challenges in a top-down approach. --Enyavar (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Milad Zare

Who (?) ... 186.174.147.166 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rahila Hajibababeyova

For the reason that the same Category:Rəhilə Hacıbababəyova exists. Yousiphh (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main category should be in English one as the common language of Commons is English and we can redirect from Azeri version. Interfase (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do Azerbaijani people have English names? Interesting... Make it a redirect. 200.39.139.16 16:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an English name. It is Azeri name with English transliteration because Commons is in English, not in Azerbaijani. When the language of Wikimedia Commons become Azerbaijani then we can have redirect from Rahila Hajibababeyova to Rəhilə Hacıbababəyova. For example category about Ilham Aliyev is Ilham Aliyev not İlham Əliyev. Interfase (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was only for other alphabets. Is this not the Latin Alphabet? Make it the Azerbaijani way. 200.39.139.16 15:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Application software

عنةنوخزخىعىع DrhK10 (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DrhK10: What is the problem? What is your proposal to solve the problem?

مەسىلە نېمە؟ مەسىلىنى ھەل قىلىش تەكلىۋىڭىز نېمە؟ JopkeB (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Payroll

What is the difference between Category:Payroll and Category:Paychecks? If no objection, I'd like to categorize the latter to the former (Paychecks as the subcategory of Payroll).--125.230.82.211 22:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Government institutions

redirect to speedy deleted category Category:Institutions of government should be either deleted or redirected to appropriated existing category Robby (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: What happened to Category:Institutions of government? Why it was deleted outright? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no additional information to this line from the deletion logs:

2024-06-30T12:09:03 Yann talk contribs deleted page Category:Institutions of government (per COM:SPEEDY)

best regards Robby (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby: I understand the reason. The category is redundant to Category:Government organizations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now redirected this category to Category:Government organizations and this discussion can be closed. Robby (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veterinary hospitals

Should merge into Category:Veterinary clinics. No significant difference between the terms. Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verterinary hospitals can do more than other veterinary facilities. They can do more-complex surgeries, whereas some clinics can't. It's like the difference between a doctor's office and a hospital for humans. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth

The name is quite strange, IMO "Milky Way Galaxy by country" is better, and put the rest of the image to the parent category (or if necessary, create another category with a better name) A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category is named that way because these images are specifically about showing some place and the Milky Way instead of e.g. only the Milky Way or the Milky Way and a negligible part of some place. If renaming it, the proper name would be Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth by country. By the way, I think it would be much more sense to organize these by subject like Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a body of water on Earth, Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a city/buildings/..., etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is not as if the the current categories are overcrowded. But if anyone wants to create further subcategories, they can figure out what subcategories would be useful (i.e. have more than a couple of images in them). Krok6kola (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why keeping this cat, but the name is really strange, why not we change it to "Milky Way Galaxy seen from the Earth" or something else? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is really tricky to come up with a good name for this category since almost all of the photos are "seen from Earth", even the ones that shows only the Milky Way and no earthly subject. Perhaps we should try to figure out a name for a category that shows only the Milky Way instead/too(?), like "Milky Way Galaxy (celestial only)". Originally thought of "(stars only)" here, but then someone would surely object that there are other celestial bodies in the Milky Way even if we can't see them.

When I created the category, I thought of many names that would sound more scholar-like, but I settled for this since it was uncomplicated. We could rename it "Milky Way Galaxy and Earth-based locations" or "Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy", or something like this. Perhaps "Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy, by country" could be a good compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than the current one. I would also accept this one. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea, we could take this one step further and make a new cat tree to incorporate another idea mentioned above by Prototyperspective. Like this:

Category:Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy
- Category:Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy, by county
- Category:Milky Way Galaxy and buildings
- Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a body of water
- Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a desert
- etc. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A1Cafel, at the time, it was just a way to create some sort of order for all the Milky Way photos that were just thrown into one big pile in the main category, regardless of where they were taken or if they showed a bit of Earth or just sky. Later, the categories 'by country' were created and with that a new and better name would now be in order. As with all big cleanups, you got to start somewhere. ;-) Now we can fine-tune this. Best, --Cart (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Milky Way Galaxy by country" seems to imply there are different parts of the Galaxy, in each country. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Enhancing999: If you look at the actual category names, e.g. Category:Milky Way Galaxy over Russia, Category:Milky Way Galaxy over Indonesia etc. there is no implication that "there are different parts of the Galaxy" in each country. Krok6kola (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed rename above isn't for the subcategories, but the parent. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs by subject

People have been using this category despite the redirect, and I kind of understand why. Is Category:Photographs by topic really the intuitive terminology here? Isn't subject the appropriate term for what's in a photo?

Despite its name, Category:Photography by subject seems to be the category where photographs are actually organized by topic, if you ask me.

Inviting MB-one and Blackcat, who created and redirected this category, respectively. Sinigh (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One should rather fix the subcategories added by templates (or the templates). Everything else gets moved on automatically. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinigh: it's not the category that's wrong, is a problem the user that categorizes erroneusly in conscious matter. -- Blackcat 18:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS and possibly avoid using crappy templates like DMC, there's Metacat which does excellently the job.

@Sinigh I'd argue, that topic and subject are not exactly the same when it comes to photographs. Thus both categories (including subcategories) should be separated. MB-one (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MB-one: I think so too. Category:Animal photography refers to a topic, while Category:Photographs of animals refers to subjects, right? Sinigh (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinigh Yes, that's what I meant. MB-one (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 15 photographs in Category:Animal photography could easily be in Category:Photographs of animals or just Category:animals. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, they don't belong at this end of the category tree. Sinigh (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Partially nude chained male humans

Do we really need this? We have Category:Partially nude chained men. Are we going to have a Category:Partially nude chained boys? Otherwise, this (currently parentless) category is completely redundant. Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Hold for now. I need to look at whether "men" or "male humans" should be the main category for male humans. Same for "women" and "female humans". Also, the term "humans" should be replaced with "people", for which I'm opening a new CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: are you willing to take responsibility for doing something reasonably soon with this (currently parentless) category? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hillview Park & Cafe

Clearly Category:Hillview Park & Cafe and Category:Hillview Park And Cafe are the same thing and should be merged. I believe that by Commons' usual conventions, the correct name would be Category:Hillview Park and Cafe (note the lowercase 'a' in "and"). Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the two places are the same, but the category should be named "Hillview Park & Cafe," reflecting the name on the main gate, as it is the official place name. —MdsShakil (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male humans

Currently, we have only three category trees using "humans": Category:Adult humans, Category:Female humans, and Category:Male humans. This is inconsistent with our usage of the term "people" throughout Commons. Not only that, there has been attempts to treat people as adults by default (like using Category:Men for all male people and Category:Women for all female people). So I'm making multiple proposals in a tabular format (like Joshbaumgartner). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans vs. people

Current name	Proposed name
Category:Adult humans	Category:Adult people, ~~or simply Category:Adults~~
Category:Female humans	Category:Female people
Category:Male humans	Category:Male people

--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is a response to Omphalographer's comment in Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, "Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should." I myself find expressions like "female person" and "male person" more natural than "female humans" and "male humans" respectively. "People" is basically the collective plural of "person". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: I wish I hadn't created these redundant categories. Should Category:Male humans be merged back into Category:Men? Jarble (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble Male humans includes both Men and Boys, so a merge into Men would not work. Eliminating Male humans and simply categorizing both Boys and Men was something that was considered, but since many files are not clear as to whether the person is a child or adult, but are clearly male, this step was kept for that reason. Josh (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Jarble says that we should merge Category:Male humans to Category:Men, and all subcats (including Category:Boys) would be categorized under Category:Men. But most dictionaries (Cambridge, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster) define "man" as an "adult male human/person", so that's not a good approach and not something I would support. Although the Bengali term "পুরুষ" is often glossed as "man" in the context of people, the term is actually used for all male people, regardless of the state of development. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Thank you for raising this question. When these terms were adopted, they were to disambiguate the previous Adults, Females, and Males categories, which are terms not specific to humans. While it was agreed that a disambiguation term was warranted, there doesn't seem to have been much consideration, however, of whether 'humans' was really the best one, or if 'people' or something else would have been better. So it is a good question to actually consider.

I am not a huge fan of the 'humans' term being used here as it is indeed not something we would normally use in everyday speech. I am not sure that 'people' is all that much more 'natural' however, and changing category names just to align with what might seem a bit more 'natural' to a few users doesn't seem like it has a great rationale. Honestly, the question ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?") posed earlier doesn't sound any more natural as "Hello, how are you, fellow people?". Also, no, Adults cannot be the answer, as there are Adult animals as well, just as we have Female animals and Male animals. That all said, I do think there is one strong argument in favor of changing from 'humans' to 'people':

The parent category for members of the Category:Homo sapiens species is Category:People, so according to the Universality Principle, "people" is the term that should be used for them at all levels throughout Commons. Josh (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, Adults cannot be the answer, as there are Adult animals as well, just as we have Female animals and Male animals.

I was unaware about it when I started this proposal. So I'm striking the category name.

The parent category for members of the Category:Homo sapiens species is Category:People, so according to the Universality Principle, "people" is the term that should be used for them at all levels throughout Commons.

This is one of the actual reasons of this proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Sbb1413 I support renaming from 'humans' to 'people' in accordance with the Universality Principle. It is true that there are a lot of affected categories, but there are also still several 'females' and 'males' category that have yet to be moved to 'female humans' and 'male humans' yet, so maybe it is best to go forward with the change now so that when those are renamed, they can just go directly to 'female people' and 'male people' in one step. Josh (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about shemales? I read somewhere that frogs are hermaphrodites. 186.173.138.246 02:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People with no children

Option 1	Option 2	Option 3
Category:People Category:Female people Category:Male people	Category:People Category:Men Category:Women	~~Category:Adults~~ Category:Adult people Category:Men Category:Women

Most categories follow option 2 for people categories that have no corresponding children categories. However, since it may cause problems with automatic categorization templates and also violates the Universality Principle, I prefer options 1 and 3. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 This section is already the subject of discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, so we should not be having two separate discussions about the same thing. Let's leave this CfD to the humans vs. people discussion above and leave the people with no children discussion to the one linked where the discussion is already well-developed. Josh (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: The local outcome may not be applicable globally. But waiting for that discussion to close is a good idea, and I have no objections to it. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for option 1, alternatively drop categorization by sex altogother. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keep as is for now. Babies shortly before or after birth and sometimes even years after birth are not considered people but are within the scope of this category. There is a related discussion on Wikidata. --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Really? I have to disagree. At least when it comes to babies that have been born. "Personhood" is a social construct based on existence in the social world and all the things that come along with it. I. E. legal documents, birth certificates, objects, names, Etc. Etc. associated with the person and their individual identity within the social hierarchy. All of which babies have. Although you could argue they don't have fully formed identities, but so what? We still treat babies as individuals separate from their mothers after birth. It would to say a toddler isn't human. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personhood is relevant., e.g. Capacities or attributes common to definitions of personhood can include human nature, agency, self-awareness. I added subclass of: human to Wikidata:Person (d:Q215627) which currently only has subclass of: person or organization (it's not mainly that which in its item is defined as a "class of agents" e.g. in the economy), individual person or organism (It's not mainly that because that also refers to various nonhuman animals), legal person (also not mainly about that because the concept of people/person is about a thing in principle not legal things) but that was undone for now and I think the main thing is now missing. You are right but I still think it could be misleading to use that terminology then rather than "humans", see for example the philosophical debate that may make it somewhat ambiguous or the rare use of the word person or people when referring to specifically babies. I phrased it a bit exaggeratedly and should have written/meant something like "are often implicitly not considered or associated with the term people but humans more broadly". Here it says The Supreme Court held that personhood could not be granted to a fetus before “viability”—the point around 24 weeks of pregnancy when a fetus can survive outside the womb[…]Now, laws that establish fetal personhood—meaning they extend the legal rights of people to a fetus or embryo before viability. Maybe one could strike the oppose but I'm still quit unsure whether it's a good idea to move the cat title. Some input on the Wikidata item change would be good. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really have an opinion on which is better here. Personally, I think both options are fine and this whole is rather pedantic. It's clearly an issue having both types of categories though. So can we just pick one and be done with it? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adamant1 regarding the personhood of a baby, since we normally put babies under people categories. However, the Universality Principle prefers consistency across Commons. So "male people" should be preferred over "male humans". Same for females and adults. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with "male people" as long as it's consistent. People will use whatever we go with on our end regardless and I don't really think there's a more widely used option here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men/women instead of male/female humans

Comment I had initially thought of eliminating Category:Male humans and Category:Female humans altogether in favour of Category:Men and Category:Women, which is consistent with Jarble's current belief. There were many reasons for this thought (male outside parentheses, female inside):

The distinction between males and men (females and women) is superfluous in many cases, where adults are more prevalent over children. In fact, men (women) have more occupations than boys (girls). So making boys (girls) a subset of men (women) is not a bad idea.
Individual male humans are usually categorized under "men of <country>" ("women of <country>") instead of "male humans of <country>" ("female humans of <country>"). This is how biographies are categorized in Wikipedia.
Since Commons is a multilingual project, we should consider other languages when deciding category structures. The distinction between "men" and "male humans" ("women" and "female humans") is absent in many languages. I had said in my earlier comment that although the Bengali word "পুরুষ" ("নারী" or "মহিলা") is used to translate the English word "man" ("woman"), in reality the term refers to all male humans (female humans).

The only reason for abandoning this thought is that virtually all English dictionaries define "man" ("woman") as a "male adult human" ("female adult human"), meaning the term does not include boys (girls). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual male humans are usually categorized under "men of <country>" ("women of <country>") instead of "male humans of <country>" ("female humans of <country>"). This is how biographies are categorized in Wikipedia.

Although Category:Greta Thunberg is now a young adult, if she were a teenager (like in the late 2010s and the early 2020s), and if we consider teenagers as children and define "women" as any female humans, then we would categorize her under Category:Children of Sweden and Category:Women of Sweden, until we had the dedicated Category:Girls of Sweden. However, as virtually all English dictionaries restrict the terms "woman" to adult females, we would categorize her under Category:Children of Sweden and Category:Female humans of Sweden instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mixed education

Not a useful category. Vast majority of schools are mixed. Those which arent are in Category:Single-gender schools Rathfelder (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the French (here), English (here) and Dutch (here) Wiki there is also a category dedicated to it!?

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 13:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the topic, and illustration of it, is not a problem. But do we want to categorise many thousands of pictures of individual schools here? Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also thousands of streets, people, canals, churches, buildings, etc.!

Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but is it not sufficient to categorise only the single gender schools in that way? Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single gender schools are exceptional and have a good reason to be categorized under category schools. This one is probably not necessary and confusing. 200.39.139.20 16:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You could just not use the category when it's not useful (e.g. England in 2025) ? Enhancing999 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete useless "Category:Mixed education". Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider it useless?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equally sane as for example "Category:Rabbits with two eyes". Taylor 49 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know they used to have three eyes.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not funny, but ridiculous. 200.39.139.20 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norfolk, England by century

I don't think this works grammatically. "Towns in Norfolk, England by century" reads like two disjointed half sentences. This is "Norfolk by century", but Norfolk is disambiguated with ", England". So it should be "Norfolk, England, by century", and "Norfolk, England, in the 20th century" etc. Like with brackets, after the disambiguation term is over, there should be a second comma. The second comma is probably missing to satisfy the templates that are only programmed to have the first comma.

First solution: What if the templates are reconfigured to also allow for the second comma?
Second solution: What if we disamibguate with brackets, given how brackets always come in pairs? Enyavar (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first solution in this case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second solution is a standard one. The problem with the first solution is that it wouldn't just concern this category or a template you may have in mind. I think way too many categories and other would need to be changed. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohyamato-jinja

Should be called Oyamato-jinja Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from WLM 2024 India with watermarks

This source category is unlikely to be used A1Cafel (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this maintenance category is going to be used during Wiki Loves Monuments 2024, like last years. See, this category from last year. Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why "unlikely"? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coffee shops in Wales

Are these distinct from Category:Cafés in Wales? Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Yes, see Category:Cafés:

Place here files relating to establishments serving coffee and other drinks and food for consumption.

For files relating to shops selling coffee beans or ground coffee where coffee is not normally consumed on the premises, see "Category:Coffee shops".

--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mobile medicine

shouldn't Category:Mobile health units be in that category? is this category named properly as it has no WP article? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Linking

the category contains mostly files that aren't about hyperlinks, does not include many hyperlink files like File:Hyperlink example.svg and yet it's only category is Category:HTML. What should be done here? I was thinking of redirecting Category:Hyperlinks to it but maybe that should become a subcategory and the HTML cat be moved to it? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concert in Togo

This category appears to be about one particular concert, and should be renamed accordingly; also needs parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fabrication du charbon écologique

I've ventured to place this under Category:Charcoal, which I think is what I see here, but (1) presumably the category name should be in English, given that it is not a proper noun or something specific to French and (2) "Ecologique" here seems more of a value judgement than an objective statement. Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indigenous peoples

The terms "Category:Indigenous peoples" and "Category:Tribes" have no universal definitions, and their corresponding Wikipedia articles make it clear ("Indigenous peoples" mentions the lack of a universal definition in the first sentence, while "tribe" does so in the third sentence). Any attempts to distinguish the two concepts are futile. In fact, the terms "indigenous" and "tribal" are treated synonymously in countries like Canada, India, and the US. So I prefer merging the two categories into one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not all tribal societies are indigenous peoples and not all indigenous peoples have tribal structures. Maybe something should be done like renaming the category/ies but e.g. the WP article you linked has The convention also covers "tribal peoples" who are distinguished from Indigenous peoples and described as "tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: This is just one of the myriads of international definitions of "Indigenous peoples" and "tribe". Different definitions make contradictory distinctions between the two terms. At best, these terms convey primitive-like societies, as opposed to modern societies. I'm not saying such concepts are invalid. I'm saying that one category tree is enough to cover social groups that follow primitive-like societies.. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sci-fi films from Archive.org

Does it really make sense to organize these videos by genre by website from where they were imported from? They rather should be organized by genre in Category:Science fiction films videos which makes this cat redudant (see also DR below). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it matches a planned import, why not. We do have "women" from "CH-NB". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question because it is not useful, a flawed way to categorize things, in general can result in films being categorized there and then removed from the category above per COM:OVERCAT and missing in more reasonable cats, causes unnecessary workload, and is misleading/a problem by not including many films that match the category title/scope. Don't understand your second sentence. Categories should make sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just means that OVERCAT is applied in a flawed way.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ignores all the other points and picks one. Considering the overcat issue: that is applying that guidelines exactly as it's specified...that's not flawed and the only cases where files are not missing in the cat above is when people didn't implement that guideline so far in that cat. It doesn't make sense to organize films by source where the files have been imported from by genre and only causes issues like the ones mentioned such as sidestepping a proper scifi films videos cat or burying files by the irrelevant criteria of the uploader's source location of the file. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that it wasn't set as a source category, but as a topical category, generating the problems you mention in the topical tree. Source categories should be ignored when building the topical tree.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source categories are not subcategorized by genre or are they? If they are it doesn't seem reasonable and doesn't change how this very incomplete cat is shown and found in Category:Science fiction films. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comedy films from Archive.org

Does it really make sense to organize these videos by genre by website from where they were imported from? They rather should be organized by genre in Category:Comedy films videos which makes this cat redudant (see also DR above). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom

Template gives the wrong categories Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hitchhiking

Although the Wikipedia's article explains that hitchhikers extends their arm towards the road with the thumb of the closed hand pointing upward; not everyone does. Some hitchhikers may hold their signs to catch a ride on the roadside. As far as I know, some hitchhikers don't know about "hitchhiking", their hand gestures like flagging down a bus or taxi. That is to say, they are raise hand high and waving, or extends their arm towards the road then palms down and waving, but there is currently no such photo on the Commons Wikipedia. Based on above, it appears they are not necessarily limited to a specific hand gesture.

Regardless of the hand gesture, hitchhikers are indeed "beckoning" to passing vehicles on the road. It's just that I saw User:Infrogmation reverted my edits (see: 1, 2), without providing an explanation in the edit summary, it may become increasingly difficult for editors to improve the Commons Wikipedia. I don't wish to have any dispute, so I bring it here for discussion as this should be resolved rather than turned into an edit war. If there is a dispute about whether "Hitchhiking" should be included in the "Beckoning" category, feel free to discuss here.--125.230.72.36 11:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO "Category:Beckoning" doesn't belong on Category:Hitchhiking since it is not an essential part of Hitchhiking. The essential part is getting a ride. Yes I'm familiar that the thumb gesture is not universally used (at least it wasn't in the parts of Mexico and Central America of my youth decades ago), and some people simply wave to passing vehicles. However other manners of getting rides don't involve beckoning - for example simply verbally asking for rides, for example at cross roads, petrol stations, or other places where vehicles stop. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly should not have parent category "beckoning". Speaking here as someone who hitchhiked across the U.S. enough times that I lost count, plenty of times, you get rides just by talking with people at truck stops or rest stops; also, prior to the spate of people begging at freeway entrances, one of the most common ways to hitchhike was just to stand at a freeway entrance with a sign indicating your destination. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As anon has made no counter-argument to Jmabel and my statements, I suggest this be closed with no further action needed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical region by country

Delete Only 1 entry exists - for Italy. Delete and recreate if new member countries are created Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic ecclesiastical regions

Delete Only 1 exists. SEE below Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Overviews

Shouldn't this be merged to Category:Views from above‎ (or a related cat/subcat)? And if not isn't "Overviews" the wrong term for it? If it's not the right term, I think it should get brackets added that this is about the physical vantage point and the current title redirect to the new Category:Overview. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In every subcategory it seems to mean something slightly different. Maybe similar things will end up in the new Category:Overview. I'd delete both or make them into a disambiguation. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a disambiguation page seems needed and then the two pages would need to be moved to so far unclear new titles. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 3rd alternative, could be to make "overviews" a parent to the other choices of views. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science and technology timelines

Split it into Category:Science timelines and Category:Technology timelines, per the CFD at Category talk:Science and technology. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Some files may be located in both of these when the science that is the subject of the timeline is about or culminates in technology. Medicine is often/usually also considered technology so one would have to think about how to categorize e.g. File:Development of lipid-lowering drugs.svg. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminalia catappa - Flowers

Redirect category with no inbound links — Junglenut | talk 08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know there are no inbound links? Even if there aren't, I don't see the harm in keeping this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminalia catappa flowers

Redirect category with no inbound links — Junglenut | talk 08:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know there are no inbound links? Even if there aren't, I don't see the harm in keeping this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JSEG

Empty bot category, no clear purpose (User talk:DrTrigonBot#Category:JSEG) Nutshinou ^Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Duplicates by AnankeBot

Empty bot category, made for issue that seems to have been fixed (User talk:Nemo bis#Duplicates) Nutshinou ^Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet Archive (90 degree rotation needed)

Misleading empty bot category (see explanation here), its counterpart Category:Internet Archive (270 degree rotation needed) was speedily deleted nearly a year ago for being unmaintained for years Nutshinou ^Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are 400,000 in the parent category. So an occasional rotation doesn't seem unlikely. Not sure what's misleading about it. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading because it's expected that a bot would rotate the files, which was useful because it worked in conjunction with Category:Internet Archive (uncrop needed), but this hasn't been the case for 3 years now, so a few days ago I had to manually (with RotateLink) request a 90° rotation of the files (some of which were in the category for years). Keeping this category will only contribute to further confusion. Nutshinou ^Talk! 14:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still does if you add {{Rotate}} (which generally works, but not always, there can be a significant delay). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is what I've done, and what users should be doing instead of adding files to the category. If this category is kept, it then becomes another category that must be manually checked for no reason since another user will eventually have to request a rotation and then remove the category from the files, which is obviously not optimal (in this case this "other user" was me and "eventually" was 3 years) Nutshinou ^Talk! 20:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Republican Party

moved to Category:Republican Party of Georgia (U.S. state) Mjrmtg (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. I see where you're coming from, but the organization's official name is Georgia Republican Party [20], which is also the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page, Georgia Republican Party. It also creates confusion with the English name for a political party in the nation of Georgia, the Republican Party of Georgia. If you want a clarifier in the name, have it be Georgia Republican Party (United States). -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? This seems already resolved, why your CdD? Anyway: needs disambiguation with Category:Republican Party of Georgia. --Enyavar (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old category should be deleted or redirected. Mjrmtg (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjrmtg: There is an option to move categories, which automatically redirects the old one to the new one. But why did you want to move this one? As Kreuz und quer points out, the name is Georgia Republican Party. I suggest we restore the original category title. Sinigh (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Category:Republican Party of Florida and thought Georgia should follow that naming convention. Mjrmtg (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographs of Mykola Lysenko

Seems unnecessary, why don't we put them into the main cat? A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should definitely be in the main category. "Photographs of" categories are usually reserved for groupings of photographs by some criteria, such as black and white photographs, etc. It might help to diffuse some of the things currently in the main category, for example "Mykola Lysenko in art". -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, endorse both posts above. Have moved other images into subcategories to make finding things easier. Blythwood (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ysgyryd Fach

The same as Category:Skirrid Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:en:Skirrid Fawr they are not the same:

Skirrid Fawr is 486 metres (1,594 feet) high.
" The smaller hill of Ysgyryd Fach or "Little Skirrid" (270 metres or 890 feet) lies about 2 1⁄2 miles (4 kilometres) south."

So these two categories can not be merged. I propose to add clear descriptions to both categories, showing the difference between the two, and make sure that the Wikidata are correct. JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kosturčanki;

Is the semicolon really part of the category name? Also, this needs parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this @Jmabel. It's my mistake. I apologize. The semicolon should be removed. Thank you Forbidden History (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbidden History: good, but Category:Kosturčanki still needs parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added few, hope it is ok. Forbidden History (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making up a new parentless category Category:Macedonian Folklore as a parent doesn't really help matters at all. The idea is to give this category existing categories as ancestors, either directly or indirectly. Offhand, that category doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You say these people were Macedonian musicians and Macedonian revolutionaries. That is presumably what we need parent categories to express. Also, a quibble: as a category name, if we were to create on like that, it should certainly be Category:Macedonian folklore (lower-case "f"), not Category:Macedonian Folklore. - Jmabel ! talk 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:God Calculation

Out-of-scope quasi-hoax, quasi-BS. Should be deleted, in my opinion. Sole file in category already nominated for deletion. Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Now empty (per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Julie Dee Bell and other deletions); no conceivable in-scope use. Omphalographer (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vienna in 1925

Speedy merge suggestion to Category:1925 in Vienna Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree JopkeB (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Global city

There are myriads of definitions of global cities, so not suitable as a category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is for now. Your argument is one for disambiguation or subcategorization, not deletion. The lead of the linked WP articles states A global city, also known as a power city, world city, alpha city, or world center, is a city that serves as a primary node in the global economic network. The concept originates from geography and urban studies, based on the thesis that globalization has created a hierarchy of strategic geographic locations with varying degrees of influence over finance, trade, and culture worldwide. The global city represents the most complex and significant hub within the international system, characterized by links binding it to other cities that have direct, tangible effects on global socioeconomic affairs. The criteria of a global city vary depending on the source.. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Elekes Andor (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings

Many "buildings in city" (or similar) categories have been used to categorize the photos that should belong to other dedicated categories (Category:Aerial photographs, Category:Skylines, or Category:Cityscapes), probably because they depict multiple buildings. I think cityscapes depicting multiple buildings should not belong to "buildings in city" categories, which should be reserved for individual buildings only. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that Category:Cityscapes is already placed under Category:Many buildings. I've also placed Category:Skylines under that category, since skylines are generally groups of multiple buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I disagree. Two or three buildings are obviously neither a "Cityscape" nor a "Skyline". Cityscape is defined as the equivalent to landscape which requires that multiple square kilometers of an area are visible. Additionally, there are not only cities as place of buildings but also towns or villages. Cityscape or Skyline doesn't fit well with towns or villages. Fl.schmitt (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proposal here? Delete ? Merge ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: My proposal is to avoid cluttering the building categories with skylines and other cityscapes, which cover a lot of buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But how? By deleting this category? By merging it? By splitting it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: By redefining the scope of this category, so that it is clear that this category is for individual buildings, and not for skylines and other cityscapes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the plan to deal with all those skylines that are currently in the category that should no longer be in it once the scope is redefined? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Eventually photos get put into categories for individual buildings if and when they exist. Depending on the place, this is just more or less developed.

I don't see how or why one should exclude images featuring several objects from categories for such objects. There is Category:Buildings by quantity that attempts to count them.

Some categories for individual buildings have a notice that they should only include cityscapes with the building, but not photographs of only the building.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lumberjacks

How is this category (and the corresponding subcategories) different from Category:Loggers? To me, "lumberjacks" is just a more archaic term for the same profession. Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The en-WP article is en:Lumberjack, whereas en:Logger is a disambiguation page. There was a proposal to rename the article, which failed. —holly {chat} 07:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Holly Cheng: That seems neither here nor there, since we already have a Category:Loggers with exactly the same apparent meaning as Category:Lumberjacks (not a disambiguation). - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we soft redirect Loggers into Lumberjacks. It doesn't make sense to have the en-WP article at a significantly different title than the Commons category. (To be clear, I don't have a particular preference for which title is chosen; I just would like them to be consistent.) —holly {chat} 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The trees of Great Britain and Ireland (1906)

can be deleted; empty / removed to other cats Dick Bos (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd redirect it. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nothing links here. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to ascertain that nothing links to category page.

Some people incorrectly use the first year a multi-volume work was published as disambiguator. The redirect ensures that they end up at the right place.

Besides, this is a a fairly old category name at Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum

The correct name is Category:Images from the Wereldmuseum Amsterdam. See also the website of the museum

The museum changed its name in 2023. All categories have been renamed, but this category has been reverted to its outdated name. So now an inconsistency exists within the Category:Wereldmuseum Amsterdam. The reason given for the revert is that the name change would be controversial and it should be discussed here.

I cannot find any source stating that the name change is controversial. There is a lot of controversy now regarding museums with colonial art. However the name change was done to get a consistent name for four museums: Wereldmuseum Amsterdam, Wereldmuseum Rotterdam, Wereldmuseum Leiden and Wereldmuseum Berg en Dal. A67-A67 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agrree with A67-A67. Could Multichill please explain us, in what this rename is controversial? Gürbetaler (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at the top of Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum, this category tracks files which have {{KIT-license}}. That release only covers specific files. By just renaming the category and not doing any changes in the template, stuff broke. We also have long term file usage statistics on this, that would break too. So this isn't a simple change.

So we probably need to make a new category for the 2009 image release (Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum 2009 release?) and point the template to that one. It's 15 years ago so that's a bit of a puzzle. Multichill (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vehicles by color by country

I can kind of see the merits of there being a categories for vehicles by color based on the country, although it's a little obtuse to begin with, but looking at some of the sub-categories they seem to go down to the level of regions and cities in same cases. Which just seems totally pointless and pedantic. Even more so because some of the categories are also based on the type of vehicle. For instance Category:Tricolor trucks in Kraków, which contains the extremely over precise child category Category:Black, green, yellow trucks in Kraków‎. Although apparently there's also Category:Black, green, yellow trucks in Poland. So I can kind of understand it, but I think organizing images of multicolor vehicles (or even single colored ones) at the city level is overly perfectionistic and serves no actual purpose. So I think the "vehicles by color by city" categories should be gotten rid. If not also the country level categories depending on how useful they are. Especially in cases where the vehicles (as well as the categories) involve more then one color. Thoughts? Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally pointless and not helpful. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dijital Kültürel Miras Ağı-2024 Kent Buluşmaları

The 3 parent categories for individual dates should probably be subcategories. The category also lacks an English description, so I hestitate to change it. The 3 other categories are currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DOCUMERICA photographers

Shall we keep this? it's currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories as parent categories have been removed. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiCan Yamoussoukro

it would be good to have a category description. The subcategories may not be suitable/specifically about this topic. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08/Category:EKLÔ_CAN helps here too, I added similar parent categories.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former sanatoriums

As far as I can see none of the Category:Sanatoriums are still operating. They are all Former sanitoriums, so this category is redundant. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Czech Republic

Although there's no consensus to change the change the name of this country category at previous discussions, we still have a mix of "Czechia"/"Czech Republic" throughout Commons. While I don't want to rename this category to "Czechia" or something, I want to restrict the scope of this category to the current republic. The Czech region before the republic and the current republic should come under an umbrella category, which can be named either "Czechia" (from the suggestion of ŠJů) or the "Czech lands" (from Wikipedia's history of the Czech lands). The Czech name for the region will be "Česko". I'll present the tabular proposal soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tabular proposal is as follows:

Czech region (Česko) proposal
Czechia (Option A)	Czech lands (Option B)
Category:Czechia Category:Czech Republic Category:History of Czechia Category:History of the Czech Republic Category:People of Czechia Category:People of the Czech Republic	Category:Czech lands (currently Category:Historical Czech lands) Category:Czech Republic Category:History of the Czech lands Category:History of the Czech Republic Category:People of the Czech lands Category:People of the Czech Republic

(btw, my interest in Czechia/Czech lands is partly due to Tomaš Bata, the founder of the Bata shoe company, which is very popular in India) --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the participants of previous discussions: @Themightyquill, Gryffindor, Wieralee, Palu, ŠJů, Juandev, Jklamo, Ragimiri, Jan.Kamenicek, Blackcat, Nyttend, Helveticus96, Joshbaumgartner, Joostik, Auntof6, Catrìona, Buidhe, Adamant1, and Enyavar: Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either: they are both historically accurate and correct. Buidhe (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before adding your comments here, remember that this is not one of the proposals to change the name of this category. The proposal is to restrict the scope of this category to the current republic, and to add a region category to the cover the Czech region before the republic. This is similar to the Bengal/Bangladesh dichotomy, where Category:Bangladesh covers the current republic, while Category:Bengal covers the region before the republic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my comments in the previous discussion about it. Mainly I'm against any kind of splitting of categories because it's not really clear what areas or periods encompass the Czech lands and/or Czechia. Especially in the case of "Czechia." But in general you can't have category structures based on amorphous, nondistinct geographical areas that have no actual agreed on boundaries or concept of when the boundaries started and/or ended. It just doesn't work. At the end of the day everything should be named "of the Czech Republic." As that's the only region here that has an actual start date and a clearly defined boundary.

There's no legitimate reason we can't just have categories for things that happened or existed before the modern state of the Czech Republic in a category for the history of Czech Republic either. That's how we do it in literally every other instance. To give an example there is no "history of the Congo Lands" or whatever for things that existed before the modern country of the Congo and/or during the Belgium occupation of the area and it would be totally ridiculous to suggest we should have one. What's so special about the Czech Republic?

I don't think the comparison between Bangladesh and Bengal is really relevant to this either since those are widely and nationally recognized concepts. Whereas the whole idea of "the Czech Lands" seems to be a fringe concept created by a minority of nationalists that isn't even recognized by anyone or accepted anywhere. Which is why the Wikipedia article for it is barely referenced and the sources it has are extremely questionable. BTW, at least two of those sources and the article refer to it as "the Bohemian Lands" anyway. Not "the Czech Lands." Sure though, lets have a category for "the Czech Lands" when it doesn't even exist, no one recognizes it, and it isn't even called that to begin with because of Bangladesh and Bengal. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained many times in previous discussions, "Czech Republic" never existed before 1969 as an entity, while Czechia is a timeless name of the country which can apply also retrospectively for the area. "Czech Republic" in category names is unusable because it is absurdly anarchic for items and subjects relating to the time before the establishment of this republic.

The problem with the instability or variability of the demarcation could concern all countries. Yet for most countries we have a category structure named after the timeless geographical name of the country, not the political name of the current power entity. It is a proven and widely used standard solution for category names and that is the reason why it should also be applied for Czechia. Its identity is relatively stable since the Middle Ages.

You can be right the the term "Czech Lands" is an ahistorical equivalent of "Bohemian Lands" which is the correct translation of "české země". The "Czech" identity appeared since the late 16th or early 17th century, when it is still not possible to talk about nationalism in the sense of the 19th century. "Czech Lands" can be distinguishing name for the core lands of the Bohemian crown where the Czech language is autochthonous, unlike Lusatias and most of Silesia which also belonged under Bohemian crown but never were Czech. --ŠJů (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out by Sbb1413 this discussion doesn't exist to rehash the whole "Czech Republic" versus "Czechia" thing. It's to decide on if there should be a category for "the Czech Lands" having to do with things before the modern state. I disagree with the crux of your argument though because there's plenty of "history of country X" categories that contain categories and images of things that existed before the modern area. What we don't do is create "lands of country X" categories.

Just to repeat what I said in my first comment, there's no reason media related to things that existed before the modern "Czech Republic" can't just be put in a "history of the Czech Republic" category. That's how we do it in literally every other instance. Otherwise be my guest and provide some evidence that we don't. Even if we did though, as I've said below it's not totally clear the whole "Czech Lands" thing is an actual concept to begin with anyway. Or again, you should provide some actual evidence outside of your personal opinion. Otherwise I think "history of Czech Republic" works perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained many times in previous discussions, we should apply the same solution for Czechia as is consensually applied for all similar countries. I.e. to use a timeless non-political geograhic name of the country, because such a name can be applied retrospectively, while political names of specific republics or monarchies are very inappropriate for anachronistic use. Similarly, "History of Germany" makes more sense in retrospect than "History of the Bundesrepublic of Germany", because the concept of Germany can also be referred back to the period when Germany was not a unified state entity. And this despite the fact that we follow defaultly the today's territorial demarcation. It works fine for the vast majority of other countries, i.e. there is no reason why this standard should not be applied to Czechia as well.--ŠJů (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as has already been explained to you multiple times now there isn't a consensus to go with "Czechia" instead of "the Czech Republic" for the names of the categories. At least sounds like we agree that "Czech Lands" isn't appropriate though. So I guess "history of the Czech Republic" it is then. Again, just like how it is with every other country. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have categories named "Czechia" for Czechia, and categories named "...Republic" for the specific republic, if needed. The key is to understand the difference between the two terms and to accept and apply the proven standards we use for other countries. Many people from Czechia have nothing to do with the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do that because there's no consensus to use "Czechia" for categories to begin with and there's no difference between the terms anyway. Know where has the government of the Czech Republic or anyone else besides you said that "Czechia" only refers to the areas of the Czech Republic before the country was created. Your just making it up to push "Czechia" when there's no consensus to use it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cs:České země (en:Czech lands, or better Bohemian Lands or Lands of the Bohemian Crown) is rather a historical term related to the monarchic period, especially before the Habsburg personal union with Austria (1526) and its later centralization to the Austrian Empire. It can also be used for the todays Czechia, but it carries with it a very strong emphasis on medieval origins, it is not an ordinary neutral timeless name of the country. An analogy to non-political geographical names of countries as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany, Italy, France, Russia etc. is unequivocally and only "Czechia" (Česko). Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on this. The term Czechia appears in the late 16th century in Latin and in the 19th century in English, it is surely not limited to the independent Czech Republic.

If there is appropriate to keep a specific category for the Czech Republic (in some topic), it should be a subcategory of the more general category for Czechia (as well as Category:Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), Category:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic or Category:Czech and Slovak Federative Republic‎ etc. are subcategories of Category:Czechoslovakia via Category:History of Czechoslovakia). However, it is customary to establish such categories only for former state entities and are intended for very specific content only. Most current republics and monarchies do not have their own subcategory within their timeless country category. Even Q1991965 and Q3496079 as the previous two Czech power entities have not their specific Commons categories because they are factically identical with the current Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czech lands....is rather a historical term related to the monarchic period...Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on this. Can you provide sources to those "Geographers, linguists and political authorities" who agree that there was a historical area before the Czech Republic called "the Czech lands" and who detail exactly what that area is? Because I looked into it pretty extensively when there was the other discussion and couldn't find any references to it what-so-ever outside of Wikipedia and a couple of random books that don't seem to be authoritative or even agree with each other about it.

Even looking at the Wikipedia article for "Czech lands" it only has three references, two of which just contain images that have nothing to do with the article and the other isn't any better. There's also a Wikipedia article for "History of the Czech lands" but even there only 1 out of the 44 references in it refer to "the Czech Lands." The rest talk about other things like the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. Nothing really comes up on Google for "Czech Lands" either except Wikipedia and the aforementioned book either. So I'm really failing to see how this an actual concept outside of a badly referenced Wikipedia article. Let alone one that "Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on." So where exactly are these "Geographers, linguists and political authorities" who agree it's a thing and discuss it? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting falsely. That statement about the consensus of experts and politicians did not refer to the term "Czech lands" but to the word "Czechia", which is officially and consensually the only non-political geographical name of Czechia, analogous to the geographical names commonly used for all surrounding countries. The basis is to understand that photographs or personalities from the time before the establishment of the Czech Republic undoubtedly relate to Czechia, but it is inappropriate to categorize them under the Czech Republic. Until you understand the difference in meaning between the two expressions, we will not move forward in the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As both I and Sbb1413 have already said we aren't here to discuss the whole "Czechia" thing. There aren't going to be categories called "Czechia" at this point. And I doubt the conversation is going to move forward until you get that and stop trying to highjack the conversation by making it about "Czechia" when that's not what it's about. Although I think your response does answer my question about "Czech lands." Clearly there's no evidence of it being a real thing or you'd just provide it instead of deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal by Sbb1413 is to use "Czechia" categories as the standard country categories with standard name form and "Czechrepublican" categories reduce to specific categories for the specific political entity, similar to the specific categories for varoius forms and periods of Czechoslovak republics. This is quite a logical system concept that corresponds to Commons standards. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sbb1413 can propose whatever they want. There was already no consensus in two other discussions to use "Czechia" for categories related to the Czech Republic. I disagree that the out of the prior two CfDs are worth ignoring simply because a single user thinks "The Czech" is anachronistic or whatever. At the end of the day there are still guidelines we have to follow and one of those are that category names can't be ambagious or refer to multiple topics.

In this case "Czechia" refers to both the modern country and historical areas. So it really doesn't make sense to just use it for the historical lands. Since again, that's not what it was created for or how it's used. It would also just create two competing categories because some people would use "history of the Czech Republic" while others would use "history of Czechia" since it's not really clear what exactly is "the Czech Republic" or "Czechia" to begin with and there's no consensus to use the later anyway. But I'm sure your counter argument to that will be just to handwave that I'm the one ignoring facts or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like neither of the options.

Option A implies Czech Republic ⊂ Czechia. The latter is nothing else but a "shorter form" of the former (hence being more less equivalent), having started to appear around ten years ago.
Option B implies Czech Republic ⊂ Czech lands. Czech lands was a quasistate with variable borders existing between 9–20th century, Czech Republic is usually considered a successor thereof. They are both subjects of the "Czech identity".

If there is a demand for having a (umbrella) supercategory for everything Czech(ia)-related, whether contemporary or ancient, have something like Category:Czech (supercategory), Category:Czech (topic), Category:Czech (term), etc. Its subcategories will be Category:Czech language, Category:Czech Republic, Category:Historical Czech lands and so on. This is the best compromise I can think of. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matěj Suchánek I agree. Both options A and B seem to be an effort to conflate a country (current Czech Republic) with a nation/people/lands/region (not exactly defined what). This is incongruous, as a country cannot be presumed to be a subset of its related nation, nor vice-versa, even in cases where they may appear coincident at first glance. As for option A specifically, Czechia is widely used in reference to the country (alternate to or shorter form of Czech Republic), so it would be inappropriate to use that name for something else instead. As for option B, Czech lands are currently defined as a specific set of geographic regions (Bohemia, Moravia, & part of Silesia), though that's indirectly via WD. Is this limited to territories within the Czech Republic, or does it include external territories as well? Josh (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option B doesn't actually sound that bad if we think of Czech lands as the "bearer" of the Czech identity. But it's confusing (made me confuse "Czech lands" and "Historical Czech lands" when writing my comment, I thought it was defined the opposite way).

As you say, "Czech lands" can also be the set of three geographic regions you can split the Czech Republic into for historical curiosity, i.e., which towns were located in Moravia, but other than that, it doesn't have much more to do with it. (By the way, since you split Czech Republic, shouldn't the relation be the opposite: Czech lands ⊂ Czech Republic?)

In general, Category:Czech Republic supercategories should be only Countries in Europe, Member states of EU, etc. and then possibly "Czech (supercategory)". Trying to make any other historical "Czech" entity a subset or a superset of it will eventually result in anachronisms. However, I see no problem in categorizing "History of the Czech Republic" ⊂ "History of the Czech lands". Because there is obviously only the historical aspect. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the people in the "lands" before the Czech Republic didn't have (or bear) the Czech identity and that's kind of what your insinuating by creating such a category and putting categories for groups of people in that had nothing to do with the Czech Republic or it's "identity." Like say you had have a Russian traveler who went through the area before the Czech Republic became a state. They weren't "Czechs." No one called them "Czechs." If you had of asked them if they were "Czechs" at the time they probably would have had no idea what your talking about. I don't think anyone know even calls them "Czechs" or considers them to be part of the Czech Republic outside of a few extreme nationalist. It's not that way in any other country either and what ever solution we adopt here has to follow how it's being done in other countries. If there is no "X country lands" categories then there shouldn't be one in this case period. And at least from what I can tell it's not done that way anywhere else. Otherwise be my guest and point out where other countries have "lands" categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: As you can see, trying to reach a solution here is futile. There is always someone who ignores arguments and facts and blocks a reasonable solution. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how I'm ignoring facts when I asked you 4 times to provide some sources for what your talking about. It's not on me that your unwilling to provide any. It's impossible to agree on a reasonable solution when one side can't be bothered to do the basics of supporting their side of it with evidence outside of just just talking in circles about the other person is just ignoring things that aren't being provided to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if in English, but in Czech, name "Czechia" (Česko) is controversial re-introduced neologism from one person. Controversion is less intensive with time, but still there is negative perception of Česko of nany people. I am against such controversial names at all. Czech republic didnt exist before? Never mind, it is not only state which didnt exist before, for example Russia exist from 16th cenzury? USA? Kanada? Etc. Palu (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a linguistcal problem. As a German native speaker I would not dare to propose a solution and I think that the Czech native speakers have to decide. In the past I have created categories and I wasn't sure which name to use. Anyway, I hope that a clear guideline for the future can be given. I admit that it would be difficult to understand what the difference between Czechia and the Czech Republic would be., if it cannot be used synonymous. I feel that there is a consensus, that by country categories mean states and not areas. Gürbetaler (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice in theory, but it doesn't work for a global project. Things have to be universally accepted, used and understandable outside of a specific geographical area or group of people. Otherwise it doesn't really work. Otherwise you'd have examples like how as from the United States I prefer "America" over "the United States" because the later is longer and not really what we call it. But then most people outside of the United States don't call it "America" and it's ambagious anyway since it can refer to the American continent. So that doesn't really work on here.

With "the Czech Republic" versus "Czechia" as Palu points out it's a fringe neologism anyway. One that know one in the Czech Republic has even said would or should the replace main name for the country. It's simply a shortened for of "the Czech Republic" that the government decided to use in some cases where it's easier. Sadly though it appears to have gotten used by a few nationalists to baselessly refer to some ridiculous thing about Czech Republic lands that existed before the forming of the country when that has nothing to do with it's original intent. The fact is that most people in the Czech Republic still refer to the history of the area of the Czech Republic as such. Not "Czechia" or "Czech Lands." I don't think we should adopt a fringe neologism just because it's been pushed and misrepresented by a few nationalists either. Even if you could argue they should be the one's who should have the say or whatever because their local to the area. Otherwise I'll get right on Changing everything having to do with the United States to "America" lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, @Gürbetaler, @Palu: I am fine with Czechia, but respect the lack of consensus on the matter, and thus am okay with retaining the status quo for now. All categories referencing the nation should use the name "Czech Republic" until such time as there is a consensus to change the whole thing. Since this proposal was not intended as a rehash of the Czechia vs. Czech Republic debate, I'd rather just move on from this and focus on the proposal by Sbb1413. Josh (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Palu: source? Prove, that's a "controversial re-introduced neologism from one person". "Česko" is widely accepted in public discourse, media outcomes, spoken language (see Česko × Česká republika in the news). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 11:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w:cs:Spor o užití slova Česko. Palu (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just a personal opinion and preference hidden under controversies and fears and other excuses Chrz (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I watch on my (printed) enciclopedia, and i read that "Antonín Dvořák, Bohemian composer of the Austro-Hungarian Empire". What has changed ever since that Bohemian Lands must be called Czechia? -- Blackcat 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Böhmen und Mähren were the two main regions of today's Czech Republic. Böhmen = Čechy is clearly a region and not the whole state. Thus we are not on the same level. Then again America is a continent. It's not a country. So I come back to the relevant question: Why is "Czechia" a "fringe neologism"? It is quite normal to speak about a country without the addition of formal state definition. Our country is officially the "Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft" (Swiss Confederation) but it's fully accepted just to speak about "Schweiz" (Switzerland). I still don't understand the controversy and would be glad for more explanations. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite normal to speak about a country without the addition of formal state definition. To qoute from a news article about it "Czechia and the Czech Republic have both been used in an official capacity for years (since 2016, in fact), with the former being simply a shortened form. From now on, however, Czech Republic will only be used in things like official government documents, legal correspondence and embassy business. Czechia will be used in things such as literary works and newspapers, as well as by people representing the country like sportspeople." So it is a formal state definition. Although the government has been pretty clear that they are only going to use in specific situations and that it won't replace The Czech Republic.

The issue comes in when people like ŠJů try to put a nationalistic intent beyond it that just isn't there and/or use it to white wash the history of the area by acting like "Czechia" was some mythological land of Czech people before the modern state. Not only is it ridiculous premise to begin with, but literally know one in the government has said that's what the word means. Again, it's just shorter form of "the Czech Republic" for purposes of making it easier to write the name of the country in news articles and official documents. That's literally it though. Just like we "USA" for the United States or the United Kingdom goes by the UK sometimes. Anyway, the important thing to take away here is that part of the quote I boldened Czechia being simply a shortened form of the Czech Republic. We usually use the full form of a countries name and there's zero reason to make exception in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually use the full form of a countries name and there's zero reason to make exception in this case. Czechia is an equivalent to Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Russia. The Czech Republic is an equivalent to Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Mexican States, Russian Federation. The first form (= shortened form) is used everywhere on Commons, we don't use the full form in fact, but the shortened one. I don't see a valid argument to make an exception and use a long form in the case of Czechia / Czech Republic. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better analogy here at least for Germany would be deutschland. I don't think your example of the Kingdom of Spain works because that was the former name of Spain. The same goes for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" BTW. That was it's name, but it's not anymore. Whereas, the Czech Republic is not the former name of the Czech Republic. It's still being used and clearly more widely then Czechia. Once that's not the case then we'd obviously go with Czechia instead, but acting like "the Czech Republic" has been completely phased out (or even phased out at all to begin with) in the Czech Republic or anywhere else is just disingenuous. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 Goethe was German author, can be in subcategory of Germany but not of Federal Republic of Germany. Antonín Dvořák was Czech composer, can be under Czechia (top category) but not under Czech Republic. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dvořák was Czech composer, can be under Czechia (top category) but not under Czech Republic. Well, it could sure. But there was already a CfD where the consensus not to have categories named "Czechia" until it's more universally adopted. Which people you seem to be ignoring for some reason. The fact is though that this has already been decided and there's zero consensus categories for "The Czech Republic" to "Czechia" or to use that name for categories at this point. I might support using "Czechia" purely for the historical territory, but out of two conversations now I have to see anyone provide any source what-so-saying saying that's what the name was created for and everything I've read in the meantime says it's just meant to be a shortened form of "the Czech Republic" because it looks better on forms. I'm more then willing to be proved wrong about that if you or anyone else can provide some legitimate sources saying otherwise though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Czechia" will solve eeeeeverything. Just wait for Wikipedia to change in a month or 10 years, do not create specific commons nonsenses and specialities for this country. Chrz (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wiki Soccerthons 2024 in Uganda

added parent categories, but the infobox seems to be about something else. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a user might have placed an infobox in a wrong place Fiktube (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem at d:Q129177377
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution

The following two seem to be about the same:

Can they be merged? Or should one be renamed?

One of them had come up on Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. → Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a merge. --MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From inspecting the files in each category, the first category includes the v2 of the Koppen Geiger maps we developed, while the second category has the v1 and v2 of our maps, plus several other maps by others, many that are not even 1km resolution. 2601:2C6:5000:D5F0:94E2:ED93:5ECE:D5C8 23:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the v2 maps include maps for several different co2 emissions future scenarios, which do not overlap with the single future period in v1. I would suggest rename the first category to "Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution V2" and the second category to "Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution V1". Thanks. NVergopolan (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds. If you want to try Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot for sorting, that would be cool.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pronunciation of India

the contents don't match Category:Pronunciation of names of countries. Maybe some other subcats of that cat have the same issue. Moreover, "Culture of India" cats (here and in parallel cats if they are present there) probably are not appropriate, anybody could speak that word. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The audio files in this category DO match. Nevertheless I agree that the subcategories do not.
ludger1961 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women by body shape

Is this only for pregnancy? That is a temporary situation. Delete this category. 200.39.139.20 16:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Please close. 200.39.139.20 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Book referencing

Should probably be merged (moved to) Category:Sub-referencing without leaving a redirect – "book referencing" is a broad phrase and refers to referencing books with lots of media on WMC about it (but not in this cat and apparently not within the cat as currently inteded). Prototyperspective (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Thanks for the pointer. As the person who created this category in 2019, I agree that it should be moved to Category:Sub-referencing. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marktplatz 40 (Haßfurt)

fehlerhaftes Duplikat von Category:Hauptstraße 40 (Haßfurt) Redd4osm (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrong adress for Einhorn Apotheke, correct adress Category:Hauptstraße 40 (Haßfurt) Nemracc (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Private libraries in Germany

This category is both empty and appears redundant with Category:Personal libraries in Germany‎. Redirection may be appropriate. Ilzolende (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A private library could belong to an institution. A person library would belong to a person. Therefore, they aren't the same and redirection wouldn't be appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reflected photographs

I don't understand what this category is intended for. "Photographs with (prominent) reflections"? It seems better to use more specific categories instead, like Category:Water reflections from grazing angles, but perhaps I'm missing something. Sinigh (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mirror effect also exists. Sinigh (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brunnen in Haßfurt

can be deleted. as there is already Category:Fountains in Haßfurt Redd4osm (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant, double Category:Fountains in Haßfurt Nemracc (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free music on Wikipedia

The category title is misleading. I think it should be moved to something like "Free music on Wikipedia (Swedish project)" (or similar). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People dying

It is hard to guess whether people are dying or not. There are various ways of death, but people can survive in most of these cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's to guess at Category:Death of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? Do you categorize based on guesses?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably be under death, not under dying. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nezarim Build and prepared

Please merge into Category:Netzarim as they deal with the same former settlement (NoteːCreator of category has sadly passed away earlier this month) DGtal (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Selection of pottery from the Przeworsk Culture in Kuyavian-Pomeranian province

Why "selection of"? --> Who did the selection and by which criteria?
Why is this not simply a part of "Category:Przeworsk culture pottery"
Also: What is "Kuyavian-Pomeranian Province"? I only know of "Category:Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship"
The categories here differentiate between Kuyavia and Greater Poland - if these categories are by Voivodeship, then "Category:Greater Poland Voivodeship" is different from Kuyavia-Pomerania!

Same issues also with Category:Selection of pottery from the Linear Pottery Culture and Lengyel Culture in Kuyavian-Pomeranian province Enyavar (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files

Why is there this infobox even after purging the page and removing the flawed cat on the WIkidata item? There are more files on WMC than pictures and even if that wasn't the case this page does not match Help:Pictures. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needed an edit, problem is solved now. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep After some more repair work there is no problem anymore. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tagata Shrine minor haiden

move to Tagata jinja okumiya Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Videos from Germany by year

Triplec85 (talk · contribs) reverted my edit without any explanation but this category does not belong into Category:Germany by year by topic because videos is not the topic and this cat is not even subcategorized by topic. Please change this cat back to e.g. Category:Categories of Germany by year. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion with @Yann: and @Adamant1: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Triplec85#Revert) The whole Category:"Categories"-thing is just pointless, nonsensical, and doesn't follow the guidelines about how to name categories.

I helped in Germany to reduce Category:"Categories". @Yann: and @Adamant1: : Was this case wrong?

Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 17:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And: And I apologize for that. it wasn't a malicious reset. It was part of a group edit with Cat-a-lot when I wasn't aware of the previous reset. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 18:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. There might be a better place for the category then Category:Germany by year by topic, but Category:Categories of Germany by year clearly isn't it for the reasons stated by Triplec85, myself, and Yann. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health by stadium of life

stadium of life? Rathfelder (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age just broader than that. I think its subcategories relating to Child health, Health during adolescence, Old people health make it quite clear. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be Stages of life? Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if 'stage' is necessarily a better term but yes it could be moved to that or to "phase". I think stadium in this context translates to stage of development but stage of life seems to be a more common phrase which apparently I didn't know. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commons To do

The cat title is ambiguous and misleading. For example it does not include pages like Commons:Audio and video requests or backlog cats and is only about Commons & Help pages that need a lot of work. Thus, I think it should be renamed to e.g. "Commons and Help pages in need of work" or something similar if the scope is not to be broadened to any kind of todos where the task/thing-todo is specified. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Maya calendars

Should probably be moved to the singular form because it's not only photos of the calendars but also the calendaric system and the glyphs. The {{Gallery page}} had a redcat link because the singular form category did not exist so I made it a redirect. The WP article is also in singular form. It's the same for Category:Julian calendars and maybe some other ones where the insufficient-quality gallery page has the singular title and no hatnote with a link to the category page. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: You can use {{gallery page|Maya calendars}} to link to the category instead of renaming the category. I have done just that to link কলকাতা (native name of Kolkata) to Category:Kolkata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks, but it's not what this discussion is about and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned how I found out about the problem of this cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Cork

Merge to Category:People of Cork (city) which is more precise. Also disambiguates it from Category:People of County Cork. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s stamps of the British Empire

There was no "British Empire" at this date Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about stamps of the British Overseas Territories? And where does Gibraltar belong to? Is there a better term than "British Empire"? At least these are "remnants of the empire". Gürbetaler (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this category should exist at all (and I'm not sure it should), certainly it should refer to the "Commonwealth of Nations", not the "British Empire". - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gürbetaler and Jmabel: We usually categorize the British Overseas Territories under the United Kingdom, despite not being parts of the country, because those territories are under the British sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Nations also includes former British colonies, like Australia, Canada, India, etc. So I suggest deleting this category as an unnecessary anachronism. I had once created an anachronistic map of the British Empire (UK + dependencies + Commonwealth realms.svg), but that does not mean the empire continues to exist even though it officially ceased to exist in 1997. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Go ahead! Would the British Empire end in 1997? Or earlier? Thanks for explanations. Gürbetaler (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gürbetaler: Yes, the British Empire ended in 1997 when Category:British Hong Kong came under the Chinese sovereignty. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint George 4th class

Is this the same as Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint George IV Class? if so, please merge or make it a subcategory where it belongs.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GS.TS Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa

Appears to be a quasi-article in Vietnamese (which I don't read). Clearly way more text than is acceptable for a category. It's also parentless, but it's not empty, so I can't just delete it. Can someone help out here? Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be 3 more uploads by the same user of the same person. I left a note at VP in Vietnamese.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vietlifenano cross-uploaded them when editing Gs. Nguyễn Đức NGhĩa and Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa on Vietnamese Wikipedia (both deleted, check the logs). Looking at this revision, I think this user is self-promoting for Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa. Anster (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could just rename the category to that. The images seem to be in scope for Commons.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicide by hanging

Suggesting rename to Category:People who died by suicide hy hanging consistent with Category:People executed by hanging. The cat contains mostly subcategories for individuals affected by suicide hy hanging, in analogy to Category:People executed by hanging containing subcategories for individuals affected by execution hy hanging. The wikidata infobox is misleading due to "cat main topic" filled that way on WikiData. Apart from "cat main topic", the WikiData item d:Q7190242 stipulated the category "Suicide by hanging" to contain people, in the same way as "People executed by hanging" does. 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Youth climate activists

should not redirect Prototyperspective (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: Create this category. We generally consider people below 40 (including children and teenagers) as young people, and both young and mature people can be climate activists. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else can create this category. It should not redirect and it shouldn't be an empty category. This means somebody needs to turn it from a redirect to a subcategory and populate it or it should be deleted (it can be recreated). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programme PONCA

this is in Category:Wikimedia projects and has this 1 file Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clothed women with bare nipples

Looks to me, most images in the category appear to be about a bare breast woman wearing clothing, but we already have a category on the same concept as "Clothed women with bare breasts". If there is no better way to highlight the conceptual and functional differences than Category:Clothed women with bare breasts, it's fairly easy to get confused. Anyway, apart from the category title, I actually see almost no difference.--125.230.84.57 07:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. No need to go more specific for this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started that category, originally under the title "Women wearing clothing with bare nipples", because many images were IMO inappropriately being put in "nude women" and related categories when the woman was otherwise clothed but with a visible nipple. I have no strong opinion of the best way to categorize, but do have this strong opinion: A visible nipple does not make a person "nude" or "naked". Some other relevant issues: I think "bare breasts" should be defined, perhaps with a hatnote. I'm concerned that many images with partially but not completely bare breasts might wind up there, like décolleté or "side boob" images. Also, are women wearing pasties bare breasted? The nipple seems a specific culturally significant factor. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images generated by Microsoft Copilot

is this redundant to Category:Images generated by Image Creator by Microsoft Bing‎? See also this CfD and pinging cat creator @Cepice: . Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Air traffic control towers by country

The subcats are a mix of "airport towers" and "air traffic control towers". Which term is more common? As per the Universality Principle, only one term should be used throughout Commons for a given topic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, only one type of thing is involved, not two. What we have is two names for the same thing. My preference is for precision, so all should be named "Category:Air traffic control towers in Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilingual area entrance pillars in Ireland

Upmerge to Category:Bilingual signs in Ireland. This triple intersection is overly specific. It has no similar parents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something else maybe. Perhaps "Irish residential areas bilingual entrance pillars" as it woudd include both housing estates and apartment blocks. We are on an upward trajectory of seeing more of them in the future I believe. "Bilingual signs in Ireland" would be a parent category.

How would this suggestion address the twin problems of over-categorisation and lack of similar parents anywhere else in Commons? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bilingual Signs in Ireland and Official Languagess Act 2003 categories would be parent categories for it, I think. Most countries have not got an Official Languages Act OLA I think so that is I think the biggest reason why there may be no other parent categories in other Commmons languages for it.

Category:Netto (supermarket)

i suggest

renaming this to "Netto (Danish supermarket chain)".
Category:Netto Marken-Discount stays unchanged.
Category:Netto (Les Mousquetaires) for Netto (Q2720988).

RZuo (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support GeorgHH • talk 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland towns

Heading 3

Category:Portrait engravings of men

Clarify the difference between Category:Portrait engravings of men and Category:Engraved portraits of men EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:No longer existent subjects

Maybe it's just me but the name of this category doesn't make any sense what-so-ever because obviously the subjects in the category exist or there be categories and images related to them. I'm not really sure what to rename it to though. As the only thing that comes to mind is "former entities", which I'm not a big fan of. So does anyone have a better idea? Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me the category name may stay as it is, unless someone has a better idea. JopkeB (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks like a mix of things that no longer exist and things that are obsolete. For example, the extinct noble titles (extinct baronetcies, etc.) no longer exist. Obsolete medical terms may no longer be used, but they still exist. Dead organisms may no longer be alive, but they exist, except that extinct species (a subcat of dead organisms) don't exist.

So I think this needs some reorganizing, with some things staying in this category and others not. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coats of arms of Schmitz Detlef family

Seltsame Kombination aus Familiennamen und Vornamen des Stifters bzw. Erfinders dieses Wappens. Wenn es ein Familienwappen sein soll, gehört der Vorname weg GerritR (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stifter ist schon richtig, "Erfinder" in diesem Zusammenhang nicht gebräuchlich. Warum mit Vorname? Weil der Familienname "Schmitz" sehr verbreitet ist und es auch andere Familien gleichen Namens gibt, die aber andere Wappen führen.

So dient der Vorname hier der eindeutigen Zuordnung, um welche Familie Schmitz es sich handelt. Detlef.Schmitz63 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SVG Tibetan Letters

Should be "letters" lower-case, but in line with other subcategories of Category:Glyphs of Brahmic scripts in SVG and since this category also contains two diacritics, Category:Tibetan glyphs in SVG is probably the most consistent name. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with moving to "Tibetan glyphs in SVG", and would support expanding this proposal to all of the subcategories of Glyphs of Brahmic scripts in SVG, except for "Malayalam numbers in SVG". Van Isaac (en.wiki) 18:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tribal village

Parentless category. Intended scope is not at all clear. Is this about a specific legal status of a community, or something else? Is this intended to be specific to some country or countries that have a clear designation of "tribal"? Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stupid as making a Category:Global village. However, what is more stupid is to discuss this kind of stuff, instead of outright deletion. It looks like people in Commons have too much time and energy to dedicate to absurd activities. 191.126.5.238 12:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the definitions of terms like "indigenous" and "tribal" are contested, both terms convey the sense of primitiveness compared to the modern society. There are a lot of paintings depicting indigenous or tribal villages (like this one), and there are populated places that look primitive compared to modern villages and towns. By the way, the category should be under Category:Tribes, and the name should be in plural. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous means primitive, ha? Where I live we have indigenous peoples like the Mapuche, Aymara and others who have representatives in all walks of life, artists, writers, academics,politicians, journalists et al. I can't see anything primitive in them. Buy a mirror or eye glasses. 191.126.5.238 15:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live we have indigenous peoples like the Mapuche, Aymara and others who have representatives in all walks of life, artists, writers, academics,politicians, journalists et al.

I didn't meant primitive in this sense, I meant primitive in culture, as mainstream cultures have evolved over time while marginalized one don't. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way out of discussion of the value of this particular category, but if you don't think tribal cultures evolve, you should look at Northwest Coast and Native Alaskan art over the last 200 or so years. I could date a piece of art from a tribe I was familiar with as readily as I could date a piece from a European artist, by looking at materials, motifs, or even what art form they were working in. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07 {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}}

Commons:Categories for discussion/Current

Header 1

Header 1

Proposal: Replacement of "women's" with "female"

Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from (wanted categories)

Anachronistic categories

Header 3