Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05

Category:Benzol locomotives of Germany

Ironside, Son & Co, Gracechurch Street, London - 'New Century' motor locomotives run on petrol, paraffin or benzol

I propose, to rename this to Category:Gasoline locomotives of Germany similar to those of Indonesia or the United States (please keep the old category name as a link and remane also Category:Deutz benzol locomotives to Category:Deutz gasoline locomotives while keeping the old category name as a link). NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Benzol translates as "benzene" and is C6H6. Benzin translates as petrol in British English and gasoline in American English. I don't know the technical history of the benzene motors and why they were called so. Thus it would need a clear technical explanation why this category could be renamed. Otherwise it should be renamed "Benzene locomotives of Germany".
Eine Benzol-Lokomotive ist nicht einfach eine Benzin-Lokomotive. Ob man diese zwei technisch zusammenfassen darf, müsste genau erläutert werden. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Reading en:Internal combustion locomotive#Benzene leads me to believe that these locomotives really did run on benzene (C6H6), not gasoline. I  Support @Gürbetaler's recommendation to rename to "Benzene locomotives...". Omphalographer (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, by now, I think that it should be kept as it is, to avoid mix-ups between the German term Benzin and the English term benzene. The term Benzol was also occasionally used in English, as shown in the advertisement. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@NearEMPTiness: I also say sorry, as we ought to use a consistent name across categories for a given topic, per the Universality Principle. Things can be liberating if the principle does not exist (we can avoid using similarly-spelt terms), but that's not the case here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments of National Importance

I propose, to rename this to Category:Monuments of National Importance in India NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Why? Is that term used somewhere else? -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
No, it isn't used yet on Wikimedia Commons, but monuments of national importance could be in any country. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, "monuments of national importance," in lower case, could be in any country. However, when capitalized it appears to refer only to this official term used in India. If it must be qualified, I would suggest "Monuments of National Importance (India)," but I don't see the need to change it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
 Keep as it is – @NearEMPTiness and Auntof6: Although similar lists also exist in other countries (see Category:National monuments), only India names its list of national monuments as "Monuments of National Importance". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
 Keep By now, I agree, to keep it simple. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Prefer original nom in lowercase. How else can it be parented to Monuments? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Flying Coaster (roller coaster model)

I am proposing that this category be deleted as over-categorization. It appears that the category has been created specifically for Flying roller coasters manufactured by Vekoma. However, the terminology used by Vekoma appears to vary between "Flying Coaster" and "Flying Dutchman". Because there is no clear term in use, and the limited scope of projects, this should be deleted. Astros4477 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Varistors for high voltage surge arresters

I propose to move the four files into Category:Varistors and then delete this category, please NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep The name "varistor" is usually used for low-voltage component , more often for electronics . It is a component by itself. "Varistors for high voltage surge arresters" are sub-components of surge arresters, only used in the High voltage electrical field. --Zen 38 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:St. Georg (Gelsenkirchen-Schalke)

There is another category about this church: Category:St.-Georgs-Kirche (Gelsenkirchen) Cmcmcm1 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cmcmcm1: There are actually three:
I'd be inclined to leave things as they are. What do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graz Linien Wagen 940

The category of this bus should also be named after the name of the type (Graz Linien Hyundai Elec City Fuel Cell) Öffis Graz (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral While I don't see a clear need, it doesn't hurt either to include the bus type in the category name. MB-one (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graz Linien Wagen 941

The category of this bus should also be named after the name of the type (Graz Linien MAN Lion’s City 12E ) Öffis Graz (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral While I don't see a clear need, it doesn't hurt either to include the bus type in the category name. MB-one (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

shouldn't this be merged to Category:Petroleum statistics? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the charts and graphs should be moved to petroleum statistics. The rest (diagrams, etc.) should be moved to petroleum infographics. The petroleum statistics would be a subcategory of petroleum infographics. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. Per the category title I think there shouldn't be any diagrams in this category. However, looking through it, there are some diagrams in it. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cultural history of New South Wales

I think this category structure needs to be reviewed, I can see what they are trying to do, but it is very deep and I think we can coalesce Category:Cultural history of Australia by state or territory to just be Category:Human activities in New South Wales (and we of course need to do this for each state and territory). It looks unlikely we will ever expand the intermidiary categories. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. This is one of the most ridiculously excessive and circuitous hierarchies I've seen in a long time. For posterity, a major element of this hierarchy was:
with a couple of side branches which mostly lead to the same photos of grain silos, such as:
To be clear, there are a couple of real branches for other content buried in here like Category:Police equipment of the New South Wales Police Force and Category:Hangars in New South Wales. But most of it is just layers and layers of categories which just make it impossible to find anything in here. (The eventual categorization of all of these photos under "popular psychology" is particularly ridiculous.) All of this needs to be upmerged with a vengeance - taking a clearly tangible subject like "grain silos" and burying it in a pile of abstractions like "human behavior" or "supply chain engineering" is not helpful. Omphalographer (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Culture of New South Wales

Please note I'm not suggesting we delete this topic, however this category is all over the place. What are we trying to do with this? What areas do we want to include - I would appreciate seeing if we could come up with a better structure to this category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably something that needs a wider discussion at COM:VPP regarding "Category:Culture of "? Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock2 and Bidgee: I'll gonna start a VP discussion there. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I think I was mistaken in this deletion request. It is part of a broad category topic - let's close this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stilmöbel

I propose, to move this category to Category:Retro style furniture NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose; I'd prefer to diffuse the category to more specific categories and delete it. "Retro style" is inherently subjective and time-dependent, and not all of the images in this category are even furniture. Omphalographer (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Food and drink in Europe

Somebody invented "food and drink" categories, two things together, the worst way of categorization. For example, in this Europe category, Italy and Turkey, two major countries with their contributions to the continent's gastronomy (food and drinks) do not even exist, while Greece is represented with a glass of beer! On the other hand, "food" categories include beverages everywhere. Simple question: Is milk not the very first and basic food that we humans and most animals consume? What about water? Therefore this dual arrangement is a total mess. Very regrettable. I was trying to avoid criticism and help within the existing parameters, but this is really disappointing. Please delete all "food and drink" categorization scheme. Dahiyane (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dahiyane: See also the category discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Food and drink. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hatherley House, Chipping Barnet

This is Tudor Hall. Hatherley House is next door. https://www.conance.co.uk/contact-us/ 82.22.173.0 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Travel in Australia by state or territory

Travel in Australia… needs to be merged to Tourism in Australia… note that I’m referring to the subcategories and not the primary category Category:Travel in Australia. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose — @Chris.sherlock2: We have both Category:Tourism in Australia by state or territory and Category:Transport in Australia by state or territory, both of which are valid subcats of Category:Travel in Australia by state or territory. You cannot put "transport" under "tourism", as "tourism" is about "travel for pleasure", while "transport" covers the means of travelling. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm I had a look at the global category tree more carefully. The confusion is that Travel and Tourism aren’t linked in that scheme, but somehow have been in the Australian scheme. I’ve fixed this now, so yes, you make a good point. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock2 and Sbb1413: Is further action needed, or can this be closed? -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval ships named after people

I'm not sure if it redirection is good: I'm not a native English speaker, but I think not every ship is a warship... f. e. "Andrey Vilkitskiy (ship, 1966)" is an icebreaker. Wieralee (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Wieralee. Navies have ice breakers, survey ships, tugs etc. Additionally the main category is simply Category:Naval ships, not warships. The move should undo. @Illegitimate Barrister: can you comment on moving this category? MKFI (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
What about submarines? A submarine is a boat, not a ship. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
They are "ships" in in the particular usage on Commons. But agreed that navies have ships beyond warships. In fact, Category:Warships is a redirect itself to Category:Naval ships. So for consistency, the redirect should probably go the other way. It looks like en-wiki does have a distinction between naval ship and warship (which is a subset), which may not have been the case when that above redirect was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Human populations

What is the scope of this category? Is this category restricted to only population statistics, or does it also cover population groups like Category:Ethnic groups and Category:Tribes? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Seems like currently the scope does include ethnic groups and tribes as those are subcategories with population statistics being in the top level and dedicated subcategories. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Anthropological categories of peoples

Redundant to Category:Social groups. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Not the same. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: How is this category distinct from Category:Social groups or the broader Category:Groups of people? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Mainly 1. Not all of those here are actual groups 2. Not all of those at social groups are anthropological categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Heterotrophs

Category used to categorize food chains, and is thus redundant to Category:Food chain. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hybrids

Is this topic restricted to only organisms, or does it also include hybrids like Category:Hybrid architecture, Category:Hybrid flags, Category:Hybrid style or Category:Yoga hybrids? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's about hybrids in biology and that those cats would need to be removed if they're in this cat. Also see the Wikidata infobox. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Make this a disambiguation category for the different kinds of hybrids. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rare animals

Unclear purpose for this and its children. Seems to mix rare breeds, endangered wild species, and vagrants that are rare where photographed but common otherwise. Not to mention King Charles Spaniels and "Exceptionally fluffy animals"! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Move contents to one of the subcategories at Category:Species by IUCN Red List category depending on conservation status, and delete this one when empty. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Do not move. Neither "bird rarities" nor rare (endangered) breeds belong under any sort of IUCN category. 1) they are not species 2) they have nothing to do with IUCN classification. Bird rarities are rare by context, not population size; Upupa epops is Least Concern, but spotting one in the UK or Finland is very rare; local bird books list it as a rare visiting species and document the latest confirmed sighting as of the publication of the guide. If anything, certain IUCN status categories should be placed under this one. --Pitke (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Redirect Synonym of Endangered animals in my view. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC) Updated comment per below. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    Rare implies low total quantity if not relative to a specific region which is the case for many endangered animals, including extinct animals, but also arguably various other ones such as animals with certain mutations, rare dog breeds and whatnot. So I think it should not redirect there but maybe could become a disambig page with a link to there. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Redirect to what category? We already have well defined cats for endangered species, but none other that would encompass endangered species, contextually rare sightings (like Upupa epops in GB), and animals with mutations or unusual expressions of common phenotypes. Did you mean rename? --Pitke (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Info I've created Category:Rarity. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical documents

A useless category. All documents are historical. Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oof. Yeah, this is no good - this category is being used as a dumping ground for documents which the uploader couldn't identify, or didn't take the time to categorize properly. The categories under Category:Historical documents by country should be upmerged to the corresponding "Documents of ..." categories. I'm not sure what to do with files directly categorized under Category:Historical documents; my inclination would be to simply decategorize them and tag as {{Uncategorized}} if they aren't in any more specific category. At least they'll eventually get looked at that way, rather than lingering here forever. Omphalographer (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I am working through them. Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder and Omphalographer: It is similar to Category:Historical images, which is getting nuked per Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG buffalo

Does this category refer to buffalo in American or British English? In American English, "buffalo" refers to Category:Bison bison (American bison), while in British English it refers to Category:Bubalus bubalis (water buffaloes). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:People painted by Frans Hals

This category contains subcategories of specific people: not "Paintings of <person> by Frans Hals", but just their names. I don't think that's useful. Being painted by a certain artist is not a defining characteristic of the people as a group. Auntof6 (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually it is. In the period he painted, it's significant that he is only documented for painting a handful of people in Amsterdam on location at a guild, and everybody else he painted was physically in Haarlem where he painted them. He is documented as stating that he couldn't leave home to finish the painting he started in Amsterdam. Jane023 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jane023: Thanks, that's interesting. Some questions:
  • Is the notable part the fact that they were painted in Amsterdam? If so, maybe the category name could specify that.
  • Did he paint anything other than people in Amsterdam? If so, maybe the category doesn't need to specify "people", or maybe we need a category for everything painted there, with the people category being a subcat.
I'm thinking the category might be better with a different name, depending on the answers (but please don't rename it while this discussion is still open). Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
No he only painted about 5 people in Amsterdam in one painting that was finished by another painter. Almost all others (over 300) were painted in Haarlem. It serves as an interesting datapoint for people of the Northern Netherlands in the 17th century. During the latter part of his life (from 1650 onwards) most people who could afford and desired portraits traveled to the Hague Amsterdam, not Haarlem. Jane023 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
That may be the case, but a category on Commons isn't an appropriate place to represent that information. Our primary purpose here is to categorize media (like the actual paintings), not to describe relationships between things (like "this person had a portrait painted of them by Frans Hals"). Omphalographer (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. A similar category could be made for people of Amsterdam painted by Rembrandt. Jane023 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
No, it could not. As I said previously: this type of relationship isn't suitable for a Commons category. The purpose of Commons categories is to categorize media, and to present topics in a hierarchical fashion. Relationships between different topics, like "X painted a picture of Y" or "A performed in the film B", are best represented as statements on Wikidata, not as membership in Commons categories. Omphalographer (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chinese FOP cases (indoor)

The Chinese FOP now accepted indoor works, so I think there is no need to categorize them as they are no longer considered as copyvio A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely this category would be a great starting point for revisiting these deletions? Just because it isn't applicable anymore doesn't mean we should forget that it ever was. Omphalographer (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Political assassinations and attempts

Two eggs in one basket, only one subcategory! How can it be "and" then? 186.173.46.48 11:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Not because of the union (which isn't necessarily wrong here), but because it's redundant to Category:Assassination. The vast majority of assassinations are, to some degree or another, political in nature; even if this category were populated it'd be largely redundant. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is whether things are political or not. I think it's including both assassinations and attempted assassinations in the same category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pleading

too ambiguous Rathfelder (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Weak support Even though the legal term is at the base name on Wikipedia the term is use more generally and the threshold for primary topics is higher on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support - this should be converted to a disambiguation between e.g. Category:Pleading (legal) and... something else to represent the non-legal sense of "plead", as seen in e.g. File:Moses Pleading with Israel (crop).jpg or File:MOREmoji pwease.svg. (What would be a good way of wording that?) Omphalographer (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe Category:Begging? English Wikipedia says that begging means "the practice of imploring others to grant a favor, often a gift of money," so it isn't necessarily asking for money. I'm not sure I'd like using that, but I don't see anything closer. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Exceptional tram routes

No indication of what is "exceptional " about these. Appears arbitrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m having difficulty with the whole good faith thing here: Either you have no idea about public transit routes, and in which case why would you want to get involved in deletion of categories pertaining to it, or you do and therefore you know very well what an exceptional route is, but why then use the threat of category deletion to push some obscure point across… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
You’d be satisfied with merging this with Category:Temporary tram routes? (It’s not the same, but better than uncategorizing the whole thing.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I note your failure to not only assume good faith but also to avoid making spurious bogus allegations.
I'll be happy to discuss the category (since we are in "Categories for discussion", not "Categories for deletion") with anyone willing to adhere to such core requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, discuss, then: What don’t you understand about "Exceptional tram routes"? It’s only three words, and I presumed you know each of them quite well, surely better than I do. Why is this worth a discussion? Your o.p. is cryptic, and if it was signed by most anyone else, I’d have dismissed it as idle trolling. But it’s you, and you always have a point, and you’re often on the right side of things. So, what’s your point?
You say there’s «no indication of what is "exceptional " about these», but it’s like complaining the same about almost any other category like, say, Category:Ships built in 1990: Most of the subcats and files in this cat offer no proof or even mention about this date, except for the categorization itself, and that’s the usual way of doing things. Why target this "Category:Exceptional tram routes" with a unique demand for clarification?
  • And why target the cat itself for discussion, as you seemingly are complaining about lack of further clarification in each member of this cat?
  • Or do you mean that the cat page should include some explanatory text detailing what this cat is meant to cover? Then why not discuss it in the talk page, instead of going to the always confrontional and aggressive option of opening a CfD? (Which is primarily meant to decide about possible deletion, as you know very well: Normal discussions occur in talk pages.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete this subjective category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
    @Laurel Lodged: Exceptionality of public transport routes is anything but subjective: Any exception to regular scheduled routes qualifies, like temporary routes altered from normal ones due to roadworks, flooding, strikes, singular events, any such thing. This is especially so for trams, whose routes necessarily follow a constricted a path within a limited network.
    Please reconsider you vote. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Temperature diagrams

Most of these are not diagrams

  • should it be moved to Category:Temperature charts (or similar) – then some subcats and files would need to be moved out of the cat and the cat would miss currently many files or
  • should the charts be moved out of the category (a new separate cat may then be good) or
  • sth else

? Prototyperspective (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Diagrams of iron and steel industry

Most of these are not diagrams

  • should it be moved to Category:Iron and steel industry charts (or similar) – then some subcats and files would need to be moved out of the cat and the cat would miss currently many files or
  • should the charts be moved out of the category (a new separate cat may then be good) or
  • sth else

? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Industry diagrams

Most of these are not diagrams

  • should it be moved to Category:Industry charts (or similar) – then some files would need to be moved out of the cat and the cat would miss currently many files or
  • should the charts be moved out of the category (a new separate cat may then be good) or
  • sth else

? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Audio files of organ music by J.S. Bach

doppelt, es gibt auch Audio files of organ music by Johann Sebastian Bach, sollte zzusammengeführt werden Subbass1 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Climate change diagrams

Most of these are not diagrams

? Prototyperspective (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Video games by name

Should this not be video games by title? Trade (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You're probably right. I also see that we have Category:Board games by name, which should get the same treatment. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Puzzle shooters

is this even a real genre? Nothing on Wikidata Trade (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. What makes a video game genre "real", anyway? It's not as though there's any final authority on the matter. But this one seems like it's simply the intersection of Category:Puzzle video games and Category:First-person shooters; I'm not convinced we need a subcategory for this. Omphalographer (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete Sources are what make a genre real enough (although they definitely disagree often). The category contains two games, The Ball and Portal − which Glitchwave define as “First-person puzzler”. Meanwhile, googling returned for example this use of the term, but all of these are more what Glitchwave calls “Aim and shoot puzzle”. So I agree with Omphalographer that here it seems to be the intersection of puzzle and shooters, and I don’t think we need that. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I think "Puzzle shooters by name" should be deleted, and those two games moved to this larger category. It's fine otherwise, I think. ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Electrical generators with other machine

Delete - nonsense cat. A pointlessly arbitrary grouping with no real-world significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As the 3 subcats demonstrate, an electrical generator is well frequently grouped with certains types of other machine. See also Category:Bicycles with other subjects. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • A generator is a device for turning mechanical movement into electricity. It is implicit in the concept that they will be driven by something. We don't need this additional layer to imply some special grouping for these (and only these three?) cases. What is an 'axle-driven generator' ? A basic generator connected by a belt drive? Or some novel new machine, using the inherent geometry of railway axles (such things do get invented and become recognisable groups). But in the case here, clearly both ends of the design spectrum are being lumped in. This extra layer of categorisation adds nothing, and if it isn't applied to all generators, then it's misleading as it implies that the ones which are listed here are somehow special cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Manor House and Rhodes House, Sleaford

Duplicate category of Category:Manor House, Rhodes House, Wall and Gate Piers to Cobbled Yard and Garden Wall to No 33; it is unused Noswall59 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep, merge Category:Manor House, Rhodes House, Wall and Gate Piers to Cobbled Yard and Garden Wall to No 33 to it, so as to match d:Q17549231
The verbose name derives from the Heritage England listing: . That is typical. They often use convoluted names to clarify the scope of a listing. We have no need to do the same and can state a clear title and a more expansive scope as two separate properties in our description. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Empty categories

listing of categories
After deleting files that are not in the public domain, these categories are empty. Gzen92 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Empty categories 2

Commons:Deletion requests/empty categories, list 2

This seems to be the same case as above. All those 60 empty categories are in the Category:Manuscripts from Gallica and they have the same type as those above. And it seems that they were created automatically by bot once. They should all be deleted now they are empty. —176.1.8.244 21:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Robert F. Sargent

More research needs to be done to find all of Robert Sargent's credited WWII photography. MrPeanut05 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

So what are you hoping will happen here? Deletion of the category and all content? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Efteling Hotel

The name of this hotel changed recently, because of the new Efteling Grand Hotel (see https://www.efteling.com/nl/pers/efteling-wonder-hotel-nieuwe-naam-van-iconisch-efteling-hotel/). S. Perquin (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep The category was at this title from 2012 until you renamed it, per COM:REDCAT the part starting with "Don't delete categories that" it should probably be kept as a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
    My thought was that there are two Efteling Hotels now, and it would be confusing if this category redirects to the first hotel. But your decision makes sense! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
    OK that's a good reason for deletion then but turning it into a DAB page (even if we don't have a category for the other yet) might well be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
    The new hotel already has a category, which is Category:Efteling Grand Hotel. The old hotel, which has thus undergone a name change, is Category:Efteling Wonder Hotel. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
    Well then we can have a DAB with those 2 entries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
    Do you know how we can do that? Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
    I've drafted a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Efteling Hotel

The name of this hotel changed recently, because of the new Efteling Grand Hotel (see https://www.efteling.com/nl/pers/efteling-wonder-hotel-nieuwe-naam-van-iconisch-efteling-hotel/). S. Perquin (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Albumen prints of Germany in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

Unused category - by sub-technique by location - that would just duplicate or move appr. 50% of "Photographs_of [country]_in_the_Rijksmuseum_Amsterdam. Peli (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Unused because you removed 1 file
and as I already mentioned at the similar cfd's me must merge Albumen prints cats and photograph cats were possible and necessary--Oursana (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
A cat with just one file in it, after two months, counts to me as an unused category. Especially if there are hundreds of candidates for it, which should all be in it, to set the example and to not raise the false impression that the Rijksmuseum has just one poor albumen print of Germany (a stereo card) in it's photo collection. I am highly doubting the validity of these one minute stubs where the creator moved on much too soon to a next totally different project without giving the newly created category some decent amount of attention like starting to really move/copy a substantial part of the due content to it.
What do you exactly mean with 'merge'? How is this done in your opinion? Put what in what and delete what? I'm still proposing to treat Albumen prints by museum just like they were photographs by country by museum. In my opinion it is not needed at this point to have separate folders for Photographs of Germany by museum with a sub cat Albumen prints of Germany by museum in it. Cats for sub-techniques of photography by museum collection exist, but they don't get sorted by depicted country until today. I am not sure if end-users looking for photographs of Madrid are interested in the first place to know which technique was used and which collection they come from. I think they want to see images of Madrid, not to be bothered about albumine or collection. But people interested in the museum collection might want this info, so keep this at institution level is my suggestion. Peli (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
When you have Category:Albumen prints of sculptures in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam,

Category:Photographs of sculptures in Italy in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam I see no contradiction to have cats by country.

I propose Albumen print photographs in the Rijksmuseum instead of Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum and Photographs in the Rijksmuseum to prevent the double structure and to think of photographs using albumin print.
In any case we must think to divide Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam which is useless with 28000 files

Oursana (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does the toplevel parent category (with a TOC and searchbox) become useless by being well filled? I fear to end up having to work with category tags like: 19th-century albumen print stereo photographs of Paris by unknown photographers published by J. Lévy & Cie in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, or even 19th-century German albumen print stereo photographs of Frankfurt am Main by Johann Friedrich Stiehm in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam next to 19th-century German albumen print portrait photographs of men at bust length looking at viewer by Johann Friedrich Stiehm in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam which is off course an overdrawn caricature and would not be possible to do manually for 50 thousand files within a reasonable timeframe. Also this would violate the simplicity principle of category names.
Maybe as a next step it would be useful and make sense to separate the book page albumen prints from the stand alones, but it would still deliver a 'crowded' category. The propased format would be 'Albumen prints from books in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam'. This would be possible to do as a mass operation although It would still not deliver <by subject>. And it would not solve the real issue of the remaining 25k uncategorised files from the RMA. For the rest I would say: the diffusion is being taken care of by placing items in reconstructed foto-albums. Peli (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam by country of origin

Albumen prints are sorted by collection only. They are already well sorted as Photographs by county by museum. Peli (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

the great number of files > 26.000 makes the parent cat Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam useless, we therefore must create subcats--Oursana (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It is too hard to define (and to read out batches of this) 'country of origine' for travel albums by photographer X from country Y of the countries A,B & C, published in country N. The subcategorisation of the flatlist is already in progress by putting them in separate large categories like stereo cards, cartes de visite, cabinet cards and smaller like travel and family albums. All of them already should be in photographs by century and photographs by country or city (in museum X in A). Peli (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The number of files has increased to more than 28000 without any solution--Oursana (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I do not understand your first sentence. In general stereo cards have nothing to do with albumin print, which uses special material "eiwit" for the print procedure.
You just moved Stereo cards in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam to Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum, e.g. including File:Aan boord van de Prinses Juliana, NG-1987-15-6-10.jpg, which is daglichtgelatinezilverdruk and no albumin. Are you messing everything up???--Oursana (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The actual number of albumen prints including those in subcategories is 46.664. So 40% is already categorized in subfolders, this is a good solution. Moving 50% of the 110k photos by country to albumen prints by country won't help much, it is a huge useless task to end up in the end with two folders per country besides the stereo cards folders: albumen prints of Germany inside of 'photographs of Germany in this museum', and to repeat that for all existing town-cats of Germany and have like 80 albumen prints of Cologne and 60 other techiques. Not a good idea. Albumen print is just one of many photo-techniques; it not a separate object type. So the tag is a secundiry tag next and parallel to photos by country by museum. It does not scare me at all that the group has grown to almost 50K albumen prints, but a lot lower can be reached by symply adding albums and removing single files as much as possible. This final review and cleanup has never been the goal yet, because there was still over 2k uncategorised albumin prints to add to the maincat. As you correctly saw not even all albumen prints where in it yet, because of this confusion on where to put them. But we are still not fully done categorising just photos by country, city subject etc. To double this effort and do it twice, or do it again this time in green, is not a productive move IMHO. Thanks, Best regards. re: It is not messing everything up to move all stereocards to albumen prints if they are for 75-80% all albumen prints. With so small number of errors or exceptions for daglichtgelatinezilverdruk (ca. 500 out of >10K stereophotos) you can't talk about 'messing everything up'. Plus I did not move them but copied them as a batch, yes the complete folder, which is totally easy to reverst and nothing to worry about. I have recounted here and it shows that ca. 72 % is correct. It is still easier to remove the odds, dealing with and finding a solution for 3.438 odd files out of 11.003 stereo cards in total. Peli (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
In general in this discussion I wanted to raise awareness that diffusing categories always build on top of the work of others. Therefore (some discussion will be inavoidable and must be allowed and) utmost care has to be taken not to leave like 50k files in a state of ill-categorisation by moving less than 10 files to the (theoretically) most ideal category, in doing so creating a huge issue to solve for the community. Peli (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

Almost all albumen prints are from the 19th century. They are already categorised by date as " 19th-century photographs by museum " It would mean a move of appr 25k distributed files to fill this cat with no omissions. Peli (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem here and with the other similar cfds is the obvious double categorization of albumin prints and photographs. If all 19th-century photographs are albumen prints, we do not need double categorizationOursana (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
They are already categorised by date as " 19th-century photographs by museum, where? If that is so
Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam should go to 19th-century photographs in the Rijksmuseum--Oursana (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I stated that most albumen prints are 19th-C. I never said all 19th-C photos are albumen. On the contrary: I would state: the 19th century had a multitude of photographic experiments all going under their own technique names but nowhere sorted yet by technique by country of depiction. Because the question is: where do you want to stop? What is the goal? Will it be desirable to have a cat:Albumen prints of Cologne in the Rijksmuseum? Or even 'Albumen prints of Cologne Cathedral in the RMA? How useful are cats for technques by museum under 'historical photographs of Cologne'? And next project will be 'photogravures by museum by country' and than 'daguerrotypes by museum by country' and next 'heliogravures by museum by country' and next 'rotoprints by museum by country' and so on and so on? All of the images coming from and doubling up the valid and functioning location system 'Photographs by museum by country', which is worked in and polished up every day. So to be clear: I am stating that (almost) every albumen print is a (19th-century) photograph and should be categorised by country as such, as a photograph by century, or by country, regarless of sub-technique, A B or C. Peli (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The categorization system must not only be found in general but by the need to divide too big cats. And this cfd is not about country. You also oppose by century, though there is a big number of 19th-century Category:Platinum prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
Collodion prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam must be divided, 19th-century photographs in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is not valid for all >20thc as well Oursana (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Albumen prints in the RMA is in itself a diffusion of Uncategorized images of the Rijksmuseum. Which was brought down from appr. 160K to zero once. And from 150k to 25K again in the last six months. This has the biggest priority to me, besides fixing thousands of plain errors, omissions, typos, faulty crops and so on. I still can not understand why the parent in question 'Albumen prints in the RMA' would be a useless category. With the Search box and the Table of countents we can perform all kinds of searches on this specific batch, to find similar items by photographer, topic, theme, country and so on. At this point in time the real issue is without doubt the proper recategorising of those last 25K uncategorized images of the museum. (Until a new shiplkoad of that huge research library arrives). With this immense image pool by museum we won't get around having some temporarily very 'crowded' subcategories, since it can only be done in small steps. And step 7 can not be taken before step 2 3 and 4. Separating the photos from the textiles is clearly bringing some clarity. It is easy to point at some work which is not done yet. Engravings, etchings, watercolors and others .. they all are large folders still waiting for for more care. Moving 2 files to a dedicated folder does not help much. I felt these new almost empty subfolders of Albumen prints in the RMA (country, century and portrait), were merely obstacles, that disable the ease of having just one big box to trow things in. It is harder to pick from a subfolder each time on a case by case basis. Now let me say again 'albumen prints' / 'abuminedruk' despite the english spelling are not prints in the usual sense. Just like Handschuhe keine Schuhe sind, und Abzüge kein Bahnhof brauchen. They are just called photos today (lichtbilder) and can perfectly be sorted within the existing trees of photographs. Which is a process that has been started and still going on to the level of cities etc.The idea of having one print in two centuries of creation is unattractive and absurd to me. If it would say '1870 - 1910' I would pick 1890 as the perfect middle of that. Some categories of museums (British Museum) dont even aknowledge Albumen prints yet, they are just sorted by photographer and not even by museum. Now that's a neat small folder., nichtwahr? Thanks for understanding and patience :) Peli (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century portrait albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

unworked category where there would be over 20k candidates for it Peli (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a wiki. What do you want to discuss?--Oursana (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm just wondering how come it has just one image in it, (ok now it has 6) when there are truckloads full of family albums, cartes de visite and cabinet cards for it. Who is going to do that task that you designed here? Or rather when are you planning on completing your jolly task of moving every possible "portrait albumen print" from the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam to this folder? This state of things with just 6 images in it out of appr. 15-20K candidates is just not reflection the truth of the matter, hence it lies: "we have searched everywhere and found just six albumen portraits from that museum". That is my issue with it. To me a very full and subcatted category is never useless but an almost empty one, which is not maintained well, is effectively useless and annoying because it permanently raises the question: work this? or ignore this? Peli (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
It is official policy, at least explicitely stated in category help, that diffusion of large categories includes the move of suited files to the new category. quoting: "select a crowded category, create appropriate subcategories if needed, and move the files to the subcategories". Not complying to the last line of this rule i.e. "move the files to the subcategories" creates undesirable ill-categorisation of all the files that should have been moved. Peli (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, ich hatte nicht erkannt das nicht alle Leute Cat-a-lot gebrauchen ... aber dann sollte man sich doch so große Projecte wohl zwei oder dreimal überlegen, denke ich mal. Ich mache dann mal im Winter weiter damit vielleicht. Auch schönen Sommer und Urlaub gewünscht LG Peli (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cycling humans in art

I think this should be upmerged to Category:Cycling in art or vice versa; the categories of the parent categories imply it's about humans and I think nearly(?) all subcategories and files there belong into here currently Prototyperspective (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep and rename to Category:People cycling in art – There might be depictions of non-human animals cycling (or appear to be cycling). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: 1.) Yes, there is Category:Cycling animals in art.
2.) I understand the idea behind Category:Cycling humans in art but the name is kind of weird. Because we have the two parent categories Category:People cycling and Category:Cycling in art I agree: a better name is Category:People cycling in art BUT there is also a similar category Category:Cyclists in art Maybe we need all categories, because not every cyclist is cycling on every picture, eg: File:Gino Bartali. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  21:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
1. Might be or are? 2. Fair point but then still most subcats should probably be moved. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Free-content licensed websites

I think this should be merged with Category:Websites with Open content where one of the two categories redirects to the other. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Silhouette profile portraits

I think this should be upmerged to Category:Silhouette portraits. Maybe 99% of these are profile portraits so we can avoid double/parallel categorisations. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  15:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. In any case, I think the more interesting distinction is bust vs. full-length portraits. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
@Kreuz und quer: Ok, so do you mean something like in Category:Portraits by framing of subject!? -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  18:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Because 99% of Category:Silhouette portraits are profile portraits, I propose a new category Category:Silhouette non-profile portraits or Category:Silhouette front portraits and delete Category:Silhouette profile portraits. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  13:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Silhouettes of faces

I think this should be upmerged to Category:Silhouette portraits. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Urban landscapes

Redundant to Category:Cityscapes. Downmerge. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rural landscapes

Potentially redundant, as Category:Landscapes is about depictions of non-urban areas. Yes, Category:Cityscapes is currently nested into Category:Landscapes via Category:Urban landscapes, but cityscapes (or urban landscapes) are distinct from landscapes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pendant portraits

I think this could be merged with Category:Portrait diptychs. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  18:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose A diptych is a 2-panelled piece where the pieces are attached, like this or this (although I might disagree that that second one is actually portraits). Pendant portraits are two separate pieces that are meant to be displayed together, like this or this. We might have some things in one or both of the categories that are in the wrong category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
that's right. Diptych is attached, in one frame, pendant - two separate paintings, made to match, same size. Other thing is that the categories should be cleared, now everything is mixed up. --Shakko (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@W like wiki, Auntof6, and Shakko: See pendant (art). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6, Shakko, and Sbb1413: Great! Thank you for your fast answers and the clear definition, especially with the two explanatory photos!! and @shakko thank you for inserting them on the category pages and already cleaning the categories!! I think we can close now the discussion? Or @Sbb1413: you posed the link to pendant (art)  Question Is there a particular point in the article that you would like to focus on or did we miss something here? Thank you already and Best Regards! -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  13:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@W like wiki: I would like to focus on the examples of pendants at the right, where a pair of images are shown side by side using {{Multiple image}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: What about them? -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Categorize the categories categorizing the pendant pairs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: I don't understand what you mean. Both of the categories we're discussing are categorized. Did you mean something else? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I mean, the images Giovanni Paolo Panini – Ancient Rome.jpg and Giovanni Paolo Panini – Modern Rome.jpg are a pair of pendants. Both of them are hung on the same wall in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, separated by several other paintings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that those paintings aren't portraits (which is what this discussion is about), how do we know they are pendants? Sometimes artists paint the same subject more than once, but they aren't necessarily intended to be a pair (or trio, or however many).
Those particular paintings are defined as pendants in Wikidata, but I see that there are multiple versions of each (see Category:Ancient Rome (Giovanni Paolo Pannini) and Category:Modern Rome (Giovanni Paolo Pannini)). I don't know what the "rules" are for what makes something a pendant.
However, since those aren't portraits, it would be better to discuss them separately. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Pendant paintings were produced to hang side by side. So art history and provenance tell us which paintings are pendants. They even need not to be shown in the same museum.
Yes I would like to close this cfdOursana (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
@Oursana: You didn't say how you want it closed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Now everybody agrees to keep everything as it is. Or what do do you mean?Oursana (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Double portraits

I think this could/should be merged with Category:Portraits with 2 people. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  18:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No. "Portraits with 2 people" - it is the main category for various types of such number of models, for example Category:Portrait diptychs --Shakko (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
"Portrait diptychs" should not be under "Portraits with 2 people" because a portrait diptych can have any number of people in it. "Diptych" refers to the form of the art work, not the number of people portrayed. Here is an example of just one wing of a diptych that shows more than 2 people. Here is an example of a diptych that has a portrait of just one person -- the other wing has a Madonna and Child. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Light vehicles

What is a "light vehicle"? The category does not say anything. The Wikidata infobox is the same as the one in its only subcat Category:Quadricycles (automobile). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tribal

Upmerge to Category:Tribes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support The subcategories and other content seem to be placed best directly in the Category:Tribes. If there is a need for "Tribal art" (the connected Wikidata item), this may be created as a separate category. Bücherfresser (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard (all files)

There’s already a Mallard category and a similar category for GWR 4079 was deleted. TwinBoo (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete We don't do this. It's just not a good solution.
If you want this, then use Petscan: or (to skip some non-Mallard from the Great Gathering) It's up-to-date and it includes all 247 files, not just the 13 that are in the category. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Le Magasin de Sel de Besançon

What is the actual situation?

Now there are two categories with very different names for the same house.

  • Wikidata has an item d:Q3224156 which always had names like "(Le) Magasin de Sel de Besançon". It has always been linked to the old Category:Le Magasin de Sel de Besançon and shows a photo also with that magazine name.
  • The files that are now in the new category (which is a redirect to this category now) have names like "Magasin de Sel Besançon" or "Besançon, immeuble au n°2 rue Lecourbe.jpg" and also "9 rue Chifflet in Besancon". None of it has "Jean-Pierre Galezot" in it’s name.
  • Only the French Wikipedia has an article about this house, and that lies at fr:Maison de Jean-Pierre Galezot

It is often the case that Commons categories are named as a Wikipedia article in the language of the item (which is French here). So the question is: Should the old Category:Le Magasin de Sel de Besançon be moved to the new name Category:Maison de Jean-Pierre Galezot as in French Wikipedia and should the newer category be deleted for that move? And should then also the entry at Wikidata have the other name? I think that the files could stay at their names, if the category and the Wikidata label should be renamed, because they don’t seem to be wrong. Or should the category stay at the magazine name? What is more important, the old magazine in the house (which is for a long time not there anymore) or the architect of the house who also lived there first? Or should the category get another new name with focus on the house and not the use of it which changed? With location of the house in Besançon, perhaps with the two street names.

According to the French article, it has been the house of the architect in the beginning of the 18th century (created 1725–1730). In the second half of the 18th century, it has been an "auberge" (Herberge/hostel), after that a "un magasin de sel comtois". Then the house got a new etage. The house is a hotel now, neither a magazine nor the house of the architect anymore.

The question is: Which name shall the old Category:Le Magasin de Sel de Besançon have in the future? I think that the newer Category:Maison de Jean-Pierre Galezot should either stay as a redirect or be deleted to move the old category to that name. But I don’t know, what is the right name now. It could also be named as house with street name and number, because it’s about the house and not about everything that has been in that house. For example:

With both architect and street names the category name would get a bit long. The architect is known fr:Jean-Pierre Galezot and died in 1742, so he didn’t live very long in his house, but he designed it. According to his French Wikipedia article, the house is at "9-9bis rue Chifflet et 2 rue du général Lecourbe" in Besançon.

The newer name Category:Maison de Jean-Pierre Galezot has no location at all in its name, neither the city nor the street. The old name Category:Le Magasin de Sel de Besançon has only the city in its name. Perhaps, a move to another new name would be better for that old category and the other two names both get redirects then. I think that Category:Maison de Jean-Pierre Galezot á Besancon would be a good new name, if it shall stay in French language. What do others think about this chaos in 3 wikis now (French WP article, 2 Commons categories and the Wikidata item)? --176.1.1.196 12:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plaque to Knoren Abrahamyan in Yerevan

Knoren or Khoren? 186.175.162.175 00:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Inai Inai Baa!

This category and the files under it have been repeatedly vandalized by LTA for a long time (Including but not limited to deleting file information and removing categories.). Requesting permanent semi-protection. Thyj (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hurricanes

Upmerge to Category:Tropical cyclones. The term "hurricane" is often used in the U.S. to refer to tropical cyclones in general rather than just the ones occurring in the Atlantic or the East Pacific. In addition, this category is well-diffused into Category:Atlantic hurricanes and Category:Pacific hurricanes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Canis lupus dingo

Taxon nomenclature disputed. Rename to the English name Category:Dingoes to avoid the nomenclature dispute. Also, the English name is understood in all languages, as evident in the vernacular names, thus maintaining the internationality principle we enshrine in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scientific reconstructions of traditional religious figures (AI-assisted)

Misleading description and concept, these images aren't based on anthropological, genetic, demographic, and cultural data as claimed, they're just what you get if you include phrases like Facial structure consistent with archaeological and demographic data when writing an AI image generation prompt, whatever (if anything) the AI makes of that. Not meaningfully different to anything in Category:AI-generated images of historical figures. Belbury (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The two forms of composition of the sentences about data seems like the same operatively talking, because of population genetics are essential part of today's demographic data, and archeology is a tool for anthropology. I'm not here for an epistemological debate about taxonomy of sciencies or the methods or accurateness of historical reconstructions and museographic illustrations in the world, but to share educative illustrations for anyone who consider them useful. The origin of the series of images was inspired by an online group of history of religion teachers who wanted to illustrate pedagogical material without using always religious iconography. They don't know how to use AI prompts, but I do. And I'm a also a teacher of investigation methodologies, it's not like I just put a simple prompt and I take any result acritically.--Hades7 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Technically the images are AI-assisted ethnographic reconstructions, a name that could embrace also less curated material than mine while including highly curated material as mine. The reconstruction method with AI assistance is also useful for non-religious figures reconstructions. That could be the new name for the category.--Hades7 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
This is probably a moot point given that all of these images are up for deletion. But  Support deletion if that doesn't happen naturally - what these images are is AI-generated images of historical figures; we don't need to dress them up with dubiously applicable terms like "ethnographic reconstructions". Omphalographer (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Rename to something without word "scientific" in it. Also "traditional" should be removed and the part in the brackets be turned into the title roughly with the scheme used for similar cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

New name proposal

The proposed name “AI-assisted ethnographic reconstructions” is the most accurate and inclusive descriptor for this class of images. These files are not artistic expressions, nor theological iconography, but interdisciplinary visual approximations based on demographic, anthropological, archaeological and geographic data — framed in a publicly documented protocol for scientific-educational use.

This terminology avoids religious bias, includes both religious and secular figures, and aligns with existing academic practices in ethnographic visualization, forensic reconstruction, and digital heritage projects.

It ensures clarity, neutrality and usefulness for educational integration (e.g., in Wikiversity, museum projects, or academic referencing), without creating confusion with stylized or fantasy-based AI art.--Hades7 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bangalore

 Rename to Category:Bengaluru. The English Wikipedia article Bangalore was recently renamed to Bengaluru as per Talk:Bengaluru#Requesting move from Bangalore to Bengaluru. Most recent media outlets are using the name "Bengaluru" across different languages. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral just make sure that there are redirects for whichever category name is not chosen (including redirects for sub-categories). Nakonana (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
endorse preserving redirects. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support. As per the enwiki discussion - the city was officially renamed to Bengaluru in 2014, and the new name has become generally accepted. Omphalographer (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
 Strong support, actually long overdue for Wikimedia Commons. While we follow common name principle as enshrined by enwiki, we do not strictly adhere to the "English reliable source" rule here, since we are a multilingual platform on Wikimedia-verse. The Commons category should have moved earlier than the entry on enwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Forțele Aeriene Regale ale României

Incorrect name and already existing category at Category:Royal Romanian Air Force. Alin2808 (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Seattle Shoreline Photos

At the very least, a poorly named category (bad capitalization, and why limit to 'photos" as against video)?. I don't thnk it is at all well-defined, either: just saltwater shorelines? Lakes (and if so how major)? Canals? There are a fair number of related existing categories, none of them except Category:Seattle currently subcats or parent cats of this one. I don't see it having been at all well populated so far, and before anyone goes about populaiting it, I'd want to see it clearly defined, appropriately named, and have a consensus that it is useful. Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

And, just in case the name wasn't ambiguous enough already, it's also potentially confusable with Category:Shoreline, Washington. But agreed - there are many different kinds of shorelines in the Seattle region; photos of them are probably best categorized based on their specific location, not just as "shoreline photos". Omphalographer (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tabular data about demography of Wertheim

Never again needed due to structure changes PerfektesChaos (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tabular data of demography of Taiwan

Never again needed due to structure changes PerfektesChaos (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Screen NSW

I can't figure out how Screen NSW is connected to this group of films. Even if they contributed to the production in some fashion, that doesn't seem like a connection which is relevant to Commons media. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Dolby Atmos films

The presence of a Dolby Atmos soundtrack in a film does not seem like a defining characteristic, nor one which is relevant to Commons media. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Use of Atmos is certainly defining, if you're interested in the technology of film production more than content. But Commons is a media repository and (given copyright restrictions) unlikely to hold many full films in the next 70 years. It's not an encyclopedia or descriptive list of films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Blue and purple figure skating dresses

The category is empty SpiritedMichelle (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Amina Maher

empty category Bluerasberry (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hiking and footpath signs in Essone

créée par erreur avec une faute d'orthographe ; à supprimer ; la catégorie bien nommée existe Fr.Latreille (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Print of Horchheim family

Das "of" anstelle des "von" ist hier fehl am Platze, denn das "von" ist Bestandteil des Namens. Bitte umbenennen. GerritR (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Anime television programmes

"Anime television series" would be an more accurate and commonly used name Trade (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Catherine of Alexandria (Carcar, Cebu)

Revert the category title back to Category:Saint Catherine of Alexandria Church (Carcar). We don't have to use the official names of churches, this is also to be consistent to the category naming practices for churches of other countries. See, for example, those from France and from Slovenia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, there are no other incorporated municipalities around the world named "Carcar", so we must avoid using the lower-tiered subdivisions to preemptively disambiguate categories of the 1,600+ incorporated municipalities of the Philippines, unless necessarily (like Category:San Isidro, Nueva Ecija and Category:San Fernando, Pampanga). Per my knowledge, only the categories of American municipalities are pre-emptively disambiguated, such as Category:San Antonio, Texas (not following enwiki convention) and Category:Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (there is only one municipality named Wilkes-Barre in the world, and that is the industrial coal-mining city of Pennsylvania's northeast with more than 40K inhabitants).
Ping also other non-bot users who edited or contributed to this category: @Hmains and Sanglahi86: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tom Brabazone

Empty and unnecessary, created from typo of Category:Tom Brabazon. Consigned (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Brick Gothic in the Netherlands

We also have sub cat Brick Gothic architecture in the Netherlands, which seems more precise. What is the difference between the two categories? Oursana (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Striegler family

Bitte löschen, habe die Kategorie mit Schreibfehler eröffnet. GerritR (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Policy studies and governance as scientific subject

I'm not sure I understand the naming of this category. If this is policy studies, then let's call it policy studies. But "policy stdues and governance as scientific object" makes zero sense. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  1. It does not make zero sense. Here's the explanation if it didn't make sense to you: studies that are about policies and/or about governance.
  2. Renaming it to policy studies can make sense but I think a descriptive category title can also be good and this is a bit broader than Category:Policy studies which already redirects here. For example, it also includes statistics about policies which aren't from studies.
Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, but the problem is that the category doesn't make grammatical sense. What do you mean by "as scientific subject"? "Policy studies and governance as scientific subject" is ungrammatical mostly because of the singular noun "subject" at the end. When you have two plural nouns like "Policy studies" and "governance" the modifying noun should also be plural if it refers to both of them.
So do you mean that both "policy studies" and "governance" are scientific subjects? Or are you are trying to describe them as a single scientific subject or field? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean by "as scientific subject"? I can't understand how the meaning is not clear to you and why you ask. Another way to phrase it is 'as a subject in scientific research' [or maybe …in science] (longer). So do you mean that both "policy studies" and "governance" are scientific subjects? that's not what I said – I wrote studies that are about policies and/or about governance and you can look up both terms in Wikipedia or some dictionary. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
It's still a really clumsy name. Can someone suggest something more concise? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Category:Study of policies and governance maybe or Category:Policy studies and research about governance. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Policy and governance are two different but related things. Currently you redirected Category:Policy studies to this category. Shouldn’t we just have a policy studies and a governance studies category? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
This is basically a category above these two that contain these two and if there is another word for the please add it. One could also have a subcategory for policy studies that study policies specifically, and not policy-making and governance. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, given that’s this is your proposal, no, I’m not going to do that yet. What I think we should do is apply this into Category:Policy studies and Category:Governance studies, and then go through each of the categories and files and add them to the appropriate category/categories. Not every category and file in the current category is relevant to governance, and not every file and category is relevant to policy. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
There would be substantial overlap though. It's an option but I think a broader cat would be better especially since there aren't that many files and many files would be in both cats or hard to separate into either. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with a broader category if you can provide one for us to use that is acceptable. But just remember the Selectivity principle - overlap is fine, but typically "there should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, you seem to be saying two subject that aren’t in any way based on science are scientific subjects. They aren’t so you can’t them as such. It makes no sense to do so. But then, I suspect you don’t mean that, but given that’s how I read it in my native tongue then it’s clearly grammatically awful. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Some of this gets tricky because different languages draw lines in different places. It is certainly Wissenschaftlich, but that word is not one-to-one with the English "scientific". - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Oh wow, I read the Wikipedia article on this word and I see the issue now. I had no idea - apologies as this makes it more clear why this word was chosen! I am conscious that this is a multilingual project and sometimes these issues crop up.
to be honest, in this case as there is literally no concept of this in English, then I think perhaps we might need to be a little creative and take the literal translation of “Knowledgeship” and use this if it is appropriate.
I do think it is slightly a moot point, however. What we have here are studies into governance and studies into policy, and studies that are interdisciplinary (ie both policy and governance). Surely it would be better to split this into policy studies and governance studies and categorise like this.
i must say, the German concept is quite intuitive and its ridiculous the English world hasn’t adopted it. I would love to be bold and create Category:Knowledgeship, but I think perhaps I might need to propose it? Or perhaps create it, then submit it to categories for discussion? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
It's about science, scientific studies as published in peer-reviewed journal using scientific methodology as well as quantitative scientific data which can be studied and/or put on a chart. This I think also becomes clear when looking at the category contents. Regarding knowledgeship, that would be a separate good subject but I don't think it's relevant here. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(with here I mean when it comes to the cat title) scientific is a different word than science; ENWP has Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, if this is a scientific discipline, then it should be something you can name. Because policy studies and governance are most definitely not scientific disciplines. You might be able to apply aspects of the scientific method to determine truths, but it is still a largely non-scientific discipline so saying it can be treated as a "scientific subject" is a nonsense. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
That is 0 logic. Science is not defined that way. Scientific disciplines are areas of science and not the definition of science. In any case, you didn't really address anything. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Social sciences aren't "sciences". "Social science" is an open compound that happens to include the word "science", but that is etymology, not ontology. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
No Social science (often rendered in the plural as the social sciences) is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among members within those societies. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
In other words, policy studies is a social science and governance studies is also a social science. Is this accurate? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Looking into it, it may make sense to use the term "governance studies" as sources do ( etc) – while it's not as big as policy studies (a well-known large field), it's the same naming schema. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, it does look like we should create one called Policy studies and the other as Governance studies. They are both social sciences, so it should encompass the scientific definition. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense and would be a reasonable closure. In that sense, this cat was basically intended to be the parent cat to both of these so if somebody knows the term both of these fit under, please add/create it or comment. --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Excellent - thank you for your clarifications, it has very much been helpful sorting this out! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Survey studies inquiring input of subjects-relevant groups

This is a long, complicated discussion. If you don't want to read it all, you may want to jump to #summary 1. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense of this category. What exactly is it trying categorise? it doesn't make gramatical sense as "inquiring input" is a verb followed by a noun, and is unidiomatic and sounds unnatural. Then the adjective ("subjects-relevant") is unclear and awkwardly constructed. So I don't know what to make of it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

it doesn't make gramatical sense does it? I think it does make grammatical sense. What about moving it to Category:Survey studies inquiring subjects-relevant groups? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Well then you would be wrong, as it is most definitely not gramatically correct to use the word "inquiring" after "input". In fact, the whole use of the word "inquiring" is the issue at hand. "Inquiring" means "asking" or "seeking information." "Input" is the information itself. Are you seeking input from a group?
Then there is "input of subjects-relevant groups" - what does this mean? "input of" implies that the input belongs to or comes from something.
I'm also utterly confused by why you have used "subjects-relevant groups". The core difficulty I have with this phrase is it is ambiguous. It attempts to create a compound adjective ("subjects-relevant") that isn't standard, leaving me to guess the precise relationship between "subjects" (typically research participants) and "relevant groups."
So do you mean that these are groups whose existence or characteristics are pertinent to the study's participants? For example, if a study is on chronic illness, "subjects-relevant groups" could refer to support networks, advocacy organizations, or family members who directly impact the lives of the patients being studied.
Or do you intend to describe groups that are relevant to the topic of the study, and whose relevance is somehow defined or highlighted by the subjects themselves? This is less common but could imply that the participants' experiences or perspectives identify certain external groups as significant to the research question.
If you could clarify, that might be helpful as you can see it is super unclear what the category is trying to categorise! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
  1. I think input is not the only thing that can be inquired so it needs to be clarified what is inquired.
  2. not gramatically correct to use the word "inquiring" after "input" if that is the case, good that this is not done then
  3. "Inquiring" means "asking" or "seeking information." "Input" is the information itself. see 1. and the proposed alternative title
  4. input belongs to or comes from something. yes, from the subjects-relevant people/group(s)
  5. that isn't standard, leaving me to guess if something is not used very often, that doesn't mean it's unclear or that one has to guess – these are people/groups relevant to the given subject
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
“inquiring input” still makes no sense. “Inquiring” is an adjective meaning “asking for information” and “input” is a verb meaning “what is put in”.
When you put them together, "inquiring input" suggests that the input itself is doing the inquiring, which is illogical. Input is typically the result of an inquiry, or the object of an inquiry, but it doesn't perform the action of inquiring.
Essentially, you're trying to use an adjective that describes an active process ("inquiring") to modify a noun that is a passive recipient or a static piece of information ("input").
Did you mean “inquiring about input" (The act of asking)?
Or did you mean "seeking input” (The act of looking for)?
Or perhaps something like "We need your input in our inquiry." (Input is the object of the inquiry)?
You can see that I can’t tell what you are trying to convey, and the invalid grammar is not only nonsensical but if someone does try to decipher it there are at least three conclusions they can come to.
As for the phrase “subjects-relevant” groups, I specifically detailed the ambiguity and a response of “it is clear” does not make it so. If you can’t answer the two questions ms I posed about this hyphenated phrase, then even you do not know what it means. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If nothing else, this needs a better name. "subjects-relevant" is barely even English, maybe "subject-relevant", but it is still a clumsy name. Maybe "relevant to the subject" at the end instead? - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware that subject-relevant is the more common term but accuracy is important: 1. it can be multiple subjects 2. this is a category for many subjects and generally category titles use plural. "relevant to the subjects" could be clearer. It's also a bit longer but seems like a fine option – so Category:Survey studies inquiring groups relevant to the subjects maybe? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Certainly headed the right way but "studies inquiring groups" is still pretty awkward. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
What exactly does “studies inquiring groups” mean? I still can’t understand this and I’m a native English speaker! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
It's self-explanatory and it's not my fault if you need to look up those words or indicative of an issue. For clarity, the current title is …inquiring input… (input could also be replaced with 'information'). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
No, it's not self-explanatory, and two educated native speakers have just said we don't understand. Each word is clear, but grammatically they make no sense together like this. You can inquire a question. You can inquire of a group. You cannot inquire a group. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed - I don’t mean to place tickets on myself, but I have a slightly higher degree of understanding of English than the average speaker and grammatically the word “inquire” makes no sense in this context.
Prototyperperspective has not been able to explain what it actually means to perform the activity “inquiring input”. Input and information are completely different concepts - input is the act of putting something into something else (a verb), and information is a noun and not a verb, and is either knowledge gained by receiving it from another source, or is knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data. So it’s still not clear what the phrase means. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Then suggest how to slightly change it so that it makes grammatical sense. I checked it with machine translation tools as well as grammar checkers and it seems fine. As explained, it's simply about inquiring information from groups, particularly groups that are relevant to the subject. For example if the subject was Wikipedia, then Wikipedia editors would be a subject-relevant group. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
When you explain to me what you are trying to achieve with the name, then I'd be happy to. But you haven't been able to explain it. Instead you said it was self-explanatory, which it isn't. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I've already explained it at "Inquiring" means "asking" or "seeking information." "Input" is the information itself.
  • I really suggest people don't work on issues they don't understand, it's okay if you don't understand something but then don't get heavily involved in it. I'm also not suddenly going around categories relating to things like anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence and trying to enforce some change while complaining I don't understand it. What would you do as say a mathematician for example there when somebody comes across and suddenly wants to change clearly phrased categories and does not address your concrete proposals and replies of how it could be changed?
  • It's super simple and as simple as Jmabel asked below almost with the difference I clarified there once again.
  • It is about media from studies that systematically gather (inquire) information from humans that are relevant to the study subject. Super simple. And already explained multiple times.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
As has by now been repeatedly explained to you, the grammar is entirely confusing and your explanations are not sufficiently clear for any of the major participants in this discussion to understand what you are trying to achieve.
It’s not a matter of me not understanding survey methodology. I think I do understand it to sufficient depth. Your grasp of English unfortunately is the issue here. To “inquire” is not to “systematically gather”, it is to ask a question. You have by now been told this is not correct English grammar repeatedly, but for some reason you seem to be of the opinion that you have a better grasp of the English language than native speakers.
Jmabel, could you assist here? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing the grammar is correct or that it shouldn't be changed. I mean I don't see how it's grammatically incorrect (one can also investigate the input if that's what it implies grammatically) but I don't need to understand why. And with "any of the major participants" you are referring to you and 1 other user (who btw I think also is not very interested or knowledgable in policy studies or survey studies). I've used this term based on how I've experienced it being used and again I wouldn't object to a better term or phrase but when I translate it, it's also translated to German "Nachforschungen anstellen" which means "doing investigations". A term that means more precisely "systematically gather" would be better and one could also use those two terms which however would make the title longer. but for some reason you seem to be of the opinion that you have a better grasp of the English language than native speakers no idea why you think so. False. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I only say that because you keep insisting that it’s clear “in the title”, yet this not clear in any way.
What is the original German that you wanted to use? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Well I only said it's all in the title...it can be convoluted or grammatically incorrect or even unclear but still have the info / answer the specific question. Anyway, I wasn't thinking in German when wondering how to name this and haven't since but if I now think of a title:
  • machine translation when using DeepL translates it to "Umfragestudien, in denen die Beiträge der untersuchungsrelevanten Gruppen abgefragt werden" which is what was meant albeit "Beiträge" is a fitting but not the best word for input and rather means posts or contributions (but there is no better matching word for "input" in German). It does have two issues: it's not "der untersuchungsrelevanten Gruppen" which assumes that there is only one group that is relevant but "untersuchungsrelevanter Gruppen" which means any such group; and it's not contributions by whole groups but of individuals belonging to certain groups / having certain characteristics. Google Translate has "Umfragestudien zur Abfrage von Inputs themenrelevanter Gruppen" which seems fine as is.
  • Thus, maybe "Umfragestudien, in denen Auskünfte studienrelevanter Gruppen untersucht werden" which machine translates to "Survey studies in which information from study-relevant groups is examined". Here "information" is misleading as it's not any information but mainly/characteristically their responses to the survey questions (e.g. a question to climate scientists "is anthropogenic climate change real?") so Category:Survey studies examining responses from study-relevant groups or Category:Survey studies obtaining input from topic-relevant groups.
Prototyperspective (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't know German, so I ran this through Gemini to try to get a better understanding.
It explained the following for me:
Untersuchungsrelevant: (Relevant to the investigation/study)
  • This is another compound adjective, similar to "studienrelevant," but it might imply a broader "investigation" rather than specifically an academic "study" (though "Studie" is also "study"). This is the one that was used in the category name: "untersuchungsrelevanten Gruppen" (study-relevant groups).
I think there is a bit of linguistic dissonance going on here. In German, it seems that it's quite reasonable to make hyphenated words, but in English unless there is a specific reason to do so, we completely avoid it because it is completely confusing. Instead, we change "study-relevant" to "relevant to the study". So I'll take a stab:
If this is the case, then... you've just described Qualitative Research. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Qualitative Research mhh there are some overlaps but it's neither the same nor am I sure if it would be a good category to set on the cat here. One key difference is that here it's specific to surveys (asking same questions) and in addition digital surveys are not even mentioned in the ENWP article. Then the key characteristic and eponymous of qualitative research apparently is non-numerical data but the input from surveys is also qualitative. One can for example plot the number of people who answered yes on question 3, vs those that answered No. And one can also ask numerical things like which year they think this or that invention or problem will exist. Then another huge difference is that it's in order to gain an understanding of individuals' social reality but that is just one of many things such survey studies here could investigate – it's also for example for projecting innovations & problems, developing a picture of the current scientific consensus/stance, or listing/ranking potential solutions etc etc.
  • Re Untersuchungsrelevant the translation is in the brackets next to it. An advantage of hyphenated words are shorter titles and cat-titles are best kept relatively short; but if that makes it less clear then change it.
  • Re "Survey studies examining group responses relevant to the study" not group responses relevant to the study but "Survey studies examining responses of people relevant to the study" (and I've explained this several times). Re "Analysis of survey group responses" this again is something much broader and I've explained this even more often then former thing as that could be finance, marketing, business, etc and isn't what the cat is about but much broader (pls is only about the analysis but the development of the study including people selection and question development and gathering of the input is at least as important); if you look at the files they don't just show analysis of survey group responses, they also just show their responses, sometimes adequately visualized.
  • I've made some concrete proposals regarding renaming.
Prototyperspective (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Possible cat names: "Qualitative research surveys of relevant subject groups", "Scientific surveys of relevant subject groups". Could say "survey studies" rather than just "surveys", but I don't think that adds much. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
(FWIW I'm still neutral on this being an appropriate category at all.)
Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
"Qualitative research surveys of relevant subject groups" no for the reasons I outlined in the comment you replied to, in this case / especially that it's not "qualitative" and thus that term is at minimum misleading/inappropriate. "Scientific surveys of relevant subject groups" don't know what is meant with "relevant subject groups" this is a title I would find confusing and unclear. "Category:Scientific surveys of groups relevant to the study subject" would be fine. Here above there are two more possible titles. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that last is probably best so far. (Sorry: by "subject groups" I meant the people who are subjected to the survey, but of course that is confusing here. And maybe confusing in the other direction in your formulation. So…) Maybe even better to have "Category:Scientific surveys of groups relevant to the study topic", since topic is unambiguous? - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
That would be a good solution I think. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve just realised - this is actually just trying to explain focus group research. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not. First, it's not trying to explain it – it's just a descriptive title and second focus group research is just a subtype of this. Just look at the files if it's not clear from the title. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
How is this something other than "surveys of groups relevant to a subject"? - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
It is different in that these are scientific surveys as in studies, not some marketing surveys or alike which can be added to one of the parent cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
You'll need to explain this more clearly, or else I'm just going to recommend that we delete the category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
It seems to me that is a particular intersection of things that we don't need to categorize with a distinct Commons category. This is especially because I don't think Commons needs to be sucked into the question of whether a particular survey was intended specifically for "scientific" (presumably meaning uninterested academic) purposes. E.g. we should not have to determine whether the source of a political poll had an interest in the outcome, or whether the source of a medical survey was trying to sell a pharmeceutical drug, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not about the purpose, it's about the kind of data (ie process). If you just put up a website where people can click their reply, that is not a study and would go into a parent cat and not into here. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
What about Category:Social science studies by group? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
No, that would be something very different. These aren't studies of groups, those are studies using input of groups that are relevant to the subject (which is why it's in the title). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Still confusing - what do you mean by "using input of groups"? Do you mean that it's like a discussion? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't know why you don't simply look at the (sub)category contents; I think it would answer your question(s). No, it's not which is the "survey" in the title also clarifies: data is gathered via a survey type process. For example (an unconventional one), 10 experts on a subject – who were selected in a transparent reproducible way – could be asked by an human interviewer by videochat or in some room the same questions and then the study, which also explains and developed those meaningful questions, analyzes and visualizes their responses. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
When you look at a category, you don't normally want to have to "interpret" what the category name means. It should be clear and concise, and if native English speakers can't understand what is meant then it's badly named.
But I'm still not clear what sort of survey you are talking about... are you saying that those being surveyed get real time information from their surveys?
Interesting, however, you ask me to look at the contents of the categories. They don't seem to correlate with your category. For example, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189753 is one of the studies, and that most certainly doesn't fit with your above explanation. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
That study perfectly fits my explanations. Don't know why you have difficulties with these. The study is a good example of what I just explained and what the cat title describes To explore this, we conducted a survey of 260 undergraduate students and researchers in Biological Sciences at a research intensive UK university. Responses to Likert scale questions demonstrated increases in confidence and skill with reading the literature between individuals at each career stage, including between postdoctoral researchers and faculty academics. […] with the subject of the paper being reading [many scientific] papers. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The subjects are members of the scientific community. The methodology is entirely different.
Perhaps you can see how unclear your category name is. I am trying, in good faith, to understand what you are trying to get at, but you keep saying what I’m suggesting is not correct. Unfortunately, the problem here is not my intelligence or ability to comprehend, it’s your ability to communicate clearly. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
So not so "self-explanatory". But clearer now. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
No, not really given that he just wrote that it is:
No, it's not which is the "survey" in the title also clarifies: data is gathered via a survey type process. For example (an unconventional one), 10 experts on a subject – who were selected in a transparent reproducible way – could be asked by an human interviewer by videochat or in some room the same questions and then the study, which also explains and developed those meaningful questions, analyzes and visualizes their responses
Not at all clear! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment at this point I'm neutral on whether there is a useful topic here, certain that if we keep it then it needs a better name and/or a clarifying hat note.
@Chris.sherlock2: I think the concept is clear, even if it was by no means self-evident. By "scientific surveys" Prototyperspective means surveys honestly intended to gather information, both in terms of the design of the survey and in the choice of sample population to whom to administer the survey. E.g.: not a pseudo-survey to get people to send money, or a "push" survey intended to change the opinions of those who take it, nor one given to a self-selecting group of people who are not representative of any particular population. Further, he is narrowing that here to one in which the group to whom the survey is administered are chosen from a population with particular expertise or interests, not from the general population. It's a reasonable concept; I'm not sure it is relevant to Commons' scope.
@Prototyperspective: correct me if you think I still have not correctly grasped your meaning. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Roughly yes but I think you already nearly understood it here since it's so simple and the title uses descriptive terms that describe it. In any case, it's definitely relevant to Commons' scope since the scope is educational and images from scientific studies are more educational than 99.9% of photos for example. Moreover, particular expertise or interests are two kinds of ways people/groups can be relevant to a subject. An example of another kind are people believing in various kinds of misinformation who are investigated and who may not necessarily be interested in the subject but still relevant to it as a group. A further example is a study of people who are suffering from a chronic disease e.g. to identify commons hardships in their daily lives – wouldn't say "interest" or "expertise" are the best ways to describe their relations to the subject. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
So... these are "studies of groups relevant to a particular subject"? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
It's all in the title. Or in the many prior explanations. You can study groups without input from them and without survey so no. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: no, it's not "all in the title," which is ungrammatical and was initially utterly unclear to two educated native speakers. I'm inclined to vote "delete" out of sheer spite, but I'm not that petty, and I'm going to try to keep working through to something coherent here.
I'm not doubting that the files that are or would potentially be the content here are relevant to Commons' scope; the question is whether the categorization is relevant.
"interest" in what I wrote above was in the sense of "an interested party" or "having a vested interest," as against a "disinterested party," not as against an "uninterested party."
Again: this concept is a narrowing of "surveys" according to several separate criteria: the nature of the survey (scientific vs. marketing/push/etc.) and that the survey is administered to a group intended to be representative of (or is even that required? Just "drawn from"? This is still not entirely clear to me) something other than the general public, and with the choice of group having some (any, it would appear) relation to the topic of the survey. In my opinion, that's overly complicated for a Commons category without being precise as to what would be in the category and what would not. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Not "representative" but, as in the title which I didn't say was perfect just that the info is contained it, relevant. You already described the scope twice 90% accurately if not more often and each time I left a pretty short pretty clear comment describing the 10% that is missing. and with the choice of group having some (any, it would appear) relation to the topic of the survey that's fairly accurate (albeit the word "choice" isn't ideal as it's more like some active selection and proactive approach to get input from these people in specific, not like there is some group readily waiting to be addressed with one mail for the group and that's it). It's a very simple category and the category contents belong into it and are reasonable to subcategorize from the overly broad categories above it. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Prototyperperspective, you really need to stop telling me “it’s all in the title”. It’s clearly not in the title because as you can see, both myself and others are completely confused as to what your are trying to classify.
I am also trying to figure out what the intent of the category is in good faith, but you are not making it easy!
In English, an interested party is one that has some involvement in the issue. that’s literally what you just described.
The reason I chose “studies of groups relevant to a particular subject” was because you said above that “surveys of groups relevant to the subject” was close to what you meant, but they survey bit was too narrow. Hence I asked if studies would be a better word.
think the biggest issue is that you are conflating a whole bunch of survey methodologies into an attempt to collapse them into a single unifying concept. There is rarely such a neat category and I’m beginning to think you need to look more closely at how survey methodologies are worked out before proposing such vague and unclear category names. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
and others For accuracy, it's 1 other and that user has got it right at least twice to 90% where I explained the remaining 10% an a short brief comment which I'm not sure if the user understood or if not what/why not.
but you are not making it easy! Given all the time I spend explaining the simple concept many times here in great length that is not true. Also, I just added a category description which also makes it clear.
In English, an interested party is one that has some involvement in the issue It's not the right term, it is any relation (broader) as just explained in the prior comment including two examples, not just those where people have some interest/involvement in the subject.
because you said above that please also consider what I'm replying to or what I said earlier. Also, I did not say that – Jmabel said that and was 90% right where the remaining 10% difference is It is different in that these are scientific surveys as in studies, not some marketing surveys or alike which can be added to one of the parent cats. which I pointed out directly beneath his comment.
conflating a whole bunch of survey methodologies It's not conflating anything – it's a broad not overly specific category about any kind of survey studies. There is no need to subcategorize by types of surveys if there are some and I'm not sure which types you are even referring to. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: On at least one count you seem to be contradicting yourself. How could a person possibly fall within the sort of group you are describing and not be an "interested party"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
An interested party refers to any individual or organization that may be affected by a situation or has a stake in a particular decision see my two prior examples; e.g. people with certain misinformation beliefs don't have a vested interest or sth like it in this context that warrants calling them such. In addition, it's not about (or not necessarily so) situations or decisions or alike; it could be any subject that is being studied. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Summarizing the above:

  • It looks like we have agreement that Category:Scientific surveys of groups relevant to the study topic is a possible rename. (Slight further tweaking might be in order.)
  • I leave it to the person who closes this discussion as to whether there is consensus to keep (I'm OK with either outcome) and, if so, whether this would still need a hat note to explain its scope, or whether the new category name would be clear as it stands.
  • @Prototyperspective and Chris.sherlock2: feel free to add to that if you feel it is not on the mark. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, let’s go with that. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:English words

many issues here: 1. there are not other cats like this for other languages 2. it contains nearly no files / subcats 3. the subcat / files it includes are pretty arbitrary and not useful even though one useful subcat was recently added about word clouds 4. those are not "Articles" as the cat description claims 5. probably not a useful cat – I think something definitely needs to be done and the best and/or easiest thing may be deleting the cat but it could also be making the scope clearer and removing files/cats + adding files/cats Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep valid category, should be more populated and we should have the same for other languages where we have categories about words. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Also see the current category contents – why is there a subcat about a City dialect. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Probably because it is badly categorized. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment – @Jmabel and Prototyperspective: Maybe this category can be restricted to one-word English text categories like Category:Protest (text), Category:Festival (text), etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
This would make sense, yes, along with the subcategory about word clouds of English words. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:2024-05-24 Mit St. Bonifaz-Chor in Josefstal

Kategorie bitte löschen, Tippfehler in der Jahreszahl, ist ersetzt mit korrekter Kategorie Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 12:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Categories of the Territory of the Saar basin by name

no content, no purpose --Lokiseinchef (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Categories of Territory of the Saar basin

no content, no purpose --Lokiseinchef (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:CBNA

Le falta el nombre correcto a esta Wiki. Yo le puse una dirección pero le falta también su imagen y la explicación en la misma página. Un saludo. Marco Antonio Medina Molina 08:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Industry (manufacturing)

It does not match with the connected wikipedia article Manufacturing ("the creation or production of goods with the help of equipment...").

At the moment Category:Industry (manufacturing) (and the connected wikidate item) makes it's own definition: "Economic sector characterized by large scale automated manufacturing as in industrialization" to make a difference to Category:Industries which is so reduced to the meaning of smaller businesses (just see the picture in the wikidata info box: and the definition "Groups of firms that produce closely related products."). BUT this is not working propper if you look to the subcategories in Category:Industries by product like Category:Aerospace industry, Category:Automotive industry or Category:Computer industry. Regards -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  10:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

There are two meanings of the English word "Industry":
1) production of goods in factories; usually this involves high chimneys and it is opposite to the artisanal form of production;
2) groups of firms that produce closely related products.
This category is for the first meaning. To be sure there can not be confusion with the second meaning, I added "(manufacturing)" to the title. Do you know a better way to make this distinction?
→ No, for me Category:Industries is not only for smaller businesses, it involves all businesses that produce the same type of products, no matter the scale of the businesses. Perhaps we need another image in the Wikidata item. (I choose it because it shows several people working in the same industry, and two shops in the same industry.)
→ The link in the Wikidata item for the Englisch Wikipedia is Industry (manufacturing). But in EN-WP this is a redirect to Manufacturing, for me that is not the same. In Dutch there are two different words for both: (1) "Industry (manufacturing)" is w:nl:Industrie and then we think of factories with chimneys, the first meaning of the English word "Industry"; (2) "Manufacturing" is w:nl:Fabricage (which gives a redirect to Fabriek = Factory, which I think is not correct, because not all manufacturing is in factories, it can also be done in workshops or at home). So I think the descriptions in the Wikidata items d:Q8148 and d:Q187939 are correct, but some links to EN-WP and NL-WP might be debatable/doubtful.
→ Please make a proposal how you think it should be. JopkeB (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Portraits by view of subject

(same with Category:Paintings by view of subject)

The name of this category is misleaning or not precise. "view of subject" means here:

  1. The "view of the subject in relation to the observer", see subcategory: Category:Portraits by angle between observer and subject's face and
  2. The "framing of the picture", see subcategory: Category:Portraits by framing of subject

See eg. subcategories like Category:Portrait paintings of females by view of subject where most content is focused on the framing aspect. -- W like wiki  Please ping me! • Postive1 • Postive2  12:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical watches

How are two particular watches "historical"? How does this differ from categories that date watches by century (or more precisely than that)? Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images and related discussions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I could see "historical watches" meaning watches that were involved in some notable event, but I see no indication of that with the two files currently in this category. Century or other time-related categories would be better, but I don't see any specific time frame for these two, either, except that one is categorized as an antique.
Do we want an "old watches" category? I don't really like the "old <foo>" categories, but I'm not sure what would be better. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I just don't see any point. We have plenty of images watches for which we know the date of the watch pretty precisely. I can't think of any good reason to mark a small additional number as "kind of old". - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Drawers (artists)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/10/Category:Drawers or draughtsmen or draftsmen.

The main category was renamed to the current name back in 2009, as per the discussion prominently displayed at the "Closing a discussion" section of the main COM:CFD page. However, Category:Draughtsmen by century and Category:Draughtsmen by country are still using the inconsistent name "draughtsmen" instead of "drawers (artists)", leaving numerous categories being directly categorized here rather than being diffused into country or century categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the term "draughtsmen" can specifically imply adult male people, although "men" in many such suffixes can also mean "people" in general. Thus, the term may potentially exclude women and also children, as there are numerous child artists (although we don't have the female equivalent Category:Draughtswomen). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment – As per Wiktionary, a draughtsman is "[a] person skilled at drawing engineering or architectural plans", with "drafter" and "drawer" as synonyms. And it seems like "draughtsmen" specifically refers to Category:Drafters rather than Category:Drawers (artists) in general. The Wikipedia article also starts with "A drafter (also draughtsman / draughtswoman in British and Commonwealth English, draftsman / draftswoman, drafting technician, or CAD technician in American and Canadian English) is..." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Technical drawing

What's the real difference between Category:Engineering drawing and Category:Technical drawing? Categories are there for navigation, and if no obvious distinctions are found between the two, then Category:Engineering drawing can be upmerged to Category:Technical drawing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,
My English is not goood enough to answer this question. From a French point of view, I would choose technical drawing (
dessin technique
) for merging, but this kind of consideration might not be very accurate here...
Regards
Cdang (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Social

I recently went through and recategorized most of the images and categories in this category, as none of them really made sense in "social". Consequently we are left with indeterminate photo. I cannot see how anything can be legitimately added to this category, as anything related to being social will normally have another word tacked onto it (i.e. Social Media). I can't see the value of this category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably needs to be deleted or be moved (in the latter case the new category could also just be created separately). A category about social interaction-related things would make sense but several such probably already exists. Another thing to consider would be making this a disambig page but most likely just delete it. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock and Prototyperspective: Maybe replace it with Category:Society, as it it probably the top-level category on social topics. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
How about converting this to a disambiguation page for the most common "social" phrases? Category:Social interaction, Category:Social media, Category:Social class, Category:Social events, Category:Social sciences, etc. Omphalographer (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
That... is actually not a bad idea! I've never done this before, how would one go about it? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Take a look at an existing category disambiguation like Category:A4, and use that as a model. Omphalographer (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've been bold and carried this out. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ancient and archaic humans in art

Upmerge to Category:Homo in art. Every Homo species other than Homo sapiens is archaic human. However, Category:Early Homo sapiens in art can be created for artworks depicting early modern humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as is / keep a separate category – This is already a subcat of Homo in art. However, it's explicitly about archaic humans like Homo erectus and prehistoric ancient humans living hundred(s) of thousands of years ago. Homo sapiens in art is a subcat of Homo in art. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: However, archaic humans are just the genus Homo excluding us, as Homo sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus. For "prehistoric ancient humans living hundred(s) of thousands of years ago", I have already suggested Category:Early Homo sapiens in art. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm well aware of both of that. In deepcategory:"xyz", I'd like to see only files about Homo that lived hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago and not many thousands of files about modern humans. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's going to include homo sapiens, as we've been around for over 300,000 years... the category is too vague to be useful. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that is the intention as I've explained above. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Extinct Homo

Category for all the species of Homo other than the sole extant species Homo sapiens. Categorize the subcats to Category:Homo by species and Category:Extinct Hominidae. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you proposing the deletion of this cat? If so why? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: It basically duplicates Category:Homo by species minus Homo sapiens, unless we have images of extinct Homo species not covered by existing categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Also, this cat currently misses several subcats contained in Homo by species. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Audio files of Homo

 Delete – There's no audio file of other species of Homo in Commons, just the sounds created by modern humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete, as well as Category:Audio files of Homo sapiens (whose only content is Category:Sounds created by people, which can go directly into the parent Category:Audio files of Hominidae). Is there a term for this sort of "A → B → C" category structure, where a whole chain of categories exists just to house a slightly more specific category? Whatever it is, it should be avoided. Omphalographer (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete useless additional level in the hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Critical thinking skills

probably best to upmerge to Category:Critical thinking; also most of the subcats probably need to be removed / refined to a more specific subcat that is actually about critical thinking skills and not just relevant/related etc Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the "most of the subcats" part, but agree that this should be upmerged to Category:Critical thinking, totally unnecessary extra layer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Floriansbrunnen, Mayrhofen

Delete this category. This category was used for two different fountains in Mayrhofen named "Floriansbrunnen", which is confusing and doesn't make sense. As there is only one picutre for each fountain, no individual categories are needed, the parent category Category:Fountains in Mayrhofen is sufficient. Luftschiffhafen (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fighting

Both categories have the same parents and the same Wikidata infobox. Should we merge the two? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know it was even possible to override the link on the Wikidata infobox (which is what's happening on Category:Fighting). In principle these should be merged if they're associated with the same Wikidata entity, but I think there might be a distinction which we can tease apart - "combat" implies an organized activity, "fighting" has more connotations of a disorganized mêlée. For instance, a military unit engages in combat; a few people brawling at a bar are fighting. Is this a distinction we can make use of? Omphalographer (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Egg roll cookies 蛋卷曲奇

I propose to merge this into Category:Hong Kong cookie rolls. I believe they refer to the same thing. Onthewings (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Better rename this and all other categories under Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests by country, as well as all of the subcategories ("/deleted" etc.) as follows:

"Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests in Albania" — "Category:Albanian threshold of originality-related deletion requests.

Not only relatively shorter, but also more accurate. Technically, the expected DR case pages concern the TOO of logos and others works that are associated with the said countries, not the logos and other works that are being used in those countries. For instance, Tesla logos on vehicles in Germany are more suited under "Category:United States threshold of originality-related deletion requests/pending", not "Category:Threshold of originality-related deletion requests in Germany/pending", since Tesla logos are from a company that is based in the United States, and US law applies (not German law). (E.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:IFA 2010 Internationale Funkausstellung Berlin 92.JPG.) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support--Trade (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kathak Group Performance

Why are "Group" and "Performance" capitalized? Is this category name a proper noun phrase? If so, could someone please define it precisely; if not, then the category name should presumably be Category:Kathak group performance. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

And an exactly analogous issue for:
@Jmabel: I think us Indians have a tendency to use title case always, and these category names are examples of such a tendency. However, we use sentence case in Wikimedia page titles, so these should be in lowercase. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Railway bridge construction in Australia by year

empty - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rail construction in Australia by year

empty - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Giraffa

The split of giraffes into species is controversial. The IUCN recognizes only Category:Giraffa camelopardalis, with all other giraffe variants as subspecies. Maybe ditching scientific names in favour of English ones, although it can be problematic for other languages? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Rau of Holzhausen family

Weil es sich um eine deutsche Familie handelt, ist das "von" Bestandteil des Namens und das "of" fehl am Platze. Bitte ändern. GerritR (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Schools of the Catholic Church in the United States

How does this differ from the longstanding Category:Catholic schools in the United States? I believe we should merge. Google shows about 9,850,000 results for "Catholic schools" and only about 397,000 for "Schools of the Catholic Church", which would incline me toward the former, but perhaps there is some particular justification as to why we should prefer this name. Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

What is a 'Catholic school' ? Is that implicitly run by the Church, or would one that merely follows Catholic principles be included too?
And even if so, would we either care, or be able to manage this distinction in a usefully accurate manner? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:English pronunciation of nouns

NOT useful, unclear scope, categorization by word class not commonly applied, only 18 files in, propose merge into Category:English pronunciation. Few word classes in Category:English pronunciation (no adjective, no verb), one word class in Category:Swedish pronunciation, ZERO word classes in Category:Esperanto pronunciation. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed action: Close discussion as poorly-researched and frivolous
Your claimMy response
NOT usefulCan you elaborate? The precedents for the 6 year old Category:English pronunciation of nouns (that's right, they're all sibling categories that predate the single category about which you're complaining) are: Are you claiming that somehow English is so different from those other mostly Indo-European languages that files involving the pronunciation of its nouns don't merit a category of their own? If categorizing all of the pronunciations of nouns by language is "NOT useful" as you claim, then how is it possible that editors spent all of their editing time adding over 150000 files to Category:German pronunciation of nouns over the past 9 years?
unclear scopeCategory:English pronunciation of nouns is a simple synthesis of the categories Category:English pronunciation and Category:Pronunciation of nouns, neither of which you're proposing deleting as of this writing. Are you claiming those parent categories are unclear in scope? If both parent categories are clear in scope, and the child category is a simple synthesis of the parent categories, then what is your theory as to how the "unclear scope" of Category:English pronunciation of nouns magically arises?
categorization by word class not commonly appliedGrown-ups call them parts of speech and if your claim is true, then why haven't you proposed deleting Category:Pronunciation of words by type and all of its descendant categories? As of this writing Category:German pronunciation of nouns contains over 150000 files and Category:German pronunciation of noun flections contains over 250000 files--if your claim is true for Category:English pronunciation of nouns, then how is it you're completely ignoring Category:German pronunciation of nouns? Is it simply because you don't like categorizing all of the pronunciations of nouns together by language, or did you just conveniently stop at English and not consider the possibility of editors who are not you deciding that grouping pronunciations in languages other than English by part of speech would be one way to avoid language-specific category of hundreds of thousands of files for every written language on the planet?
only 18 files in, propose merge into Category:English pronunciationAre you claiming somehow that each of the present members of Category:English pronunciation of nouns aren't also pronunciations of nouns (hence one of its parent categories, Category:Pronunciation of nouns)? Sounds like your time would have been better spent bringing Category:English pronunciation of nouns up to the comprehensiveness of Category:German pronunciation of nouns than in filing this frivolous demand for deletion.
Few word classes in Category:English pronunciation (no adjective, no verb), one word class in Category:Swedish pronunciation, ZERO word classes in Category:Esperanto pronunciation.It appears that you are cherry-picking what you look at. Compare the three languages you self-servingly selected to the actual language-specific subcategories of Category:Pronunciation of words by type to reveal your arbitrary and punitive motive: Category:Pronunciation of adjectives, Category:Pronunciation of adverbs, Category:Pronunciation of nouns, Category:Pronunciation of pronouns, Category:Pronunciation of verbs.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Overreacted a bit? Still there are only 18 files is Category:English pronunciation of nouns, and Category:Pronunciation of adjectives does NOT have a subcat Category:English pronunciation of adjectives, and Category:Pronunciation of verbs does NOT have a subcat Category:English pronunciation of verbs. Can it be that English does NOT have adjectives and does NOT have verbs at all? If you claim that Category:English pronunciation of nouns is useful, why don't you check all ca 86'000 files in Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation-eng, one at a time, and add Category:English pronunciation of nouns to those belonging to that word class? Or can it be that English has totally only ca 18 nouns? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Your claimMy response
Overreacted a bit?I gather from this putdown and from your silence on the following that you're conceding my points:
Still there are only 18 files is Category:English pronunciation of nouns, and Category:Pronunciation of adjectives does NOT have a subcat Category:English pronunciation of adjectives, and Category:Pronunciation of verbs does NOT have a subcat Category:English pronunciation of verbs.So a reasonable editor, upon seeing this, would create Category:English pronunciation of adjectives and Category:English pronunciation of verbs and start populating them to bring them up to the comprehensiveness of the language-specific subcategories of Category:Pronunciation of adjectives and Category:Pronunciation of verbs (as well as continue populating Category:English pronunciation of nouns to match the 150000 files in Category:German pronunciation of nouns).
Can it be that English does NOT have adjectives and does NOT have verbs at all?So per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, your reaction to an incomplete category should be to start populating it, not to delete it out of hand.
If you claim that Category:English pronunciation of nouns is useful, why don't you check all ca 86'000 files in Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation-eng, one at a time, and add Category:English pronunciation of nouns to those belonging to that word class?You're confused: I can tolerate incomplete categories--you're the one whining and complaining about Category:English pronunciation of nouns (but not about Category:French pronunciation of nouns, Category:German pronunciation of nouns, Category:Korean pronunciation of nouns, etc.), so it's really incumbent on you to address your complaint and not expect others to do your bidding.
Or can it be that English has totally only ca 18 nouns?So, again, if the number of files presently appearing in Category:English pronunciation of nouns falls below your quota (which you conveniently haven't specified), then the constructive thing to do would be for you to start adding files that meet the criteria of the category instead of deleting the category.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. What part (or parts!) of speech a word is classified as is something which Wiktionary can decide. I don't see what practical use case for these files is assisted by adding these categories. (If a word is actually pronounced differently based on what part of speech it is acting as - e.g. "dove" in English - that's an unusual case which can be called out in the filename.) Omphalographer (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
So you want Category:English pronunciation of nouns singled out for deletion, but Category:Czech pronunciation of nouns, Category:French pronunciation of nouns, Category:Icelandic pronunciation of nouns, and even their parent category Category:Pronunciation of nouns left alone? If you truly find categorization by part of speech so odious, why aren't you CfDing Category:Pronunciation of words by type and all of its descendant categories? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Categorization by word class is done and crucial on wiktionary. It is of little use here. Before any volunteer starts checking all ca 86'000 files in Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation-eng, one at a time, and adding Category:English pronunciation of nouns to those belonging to that word class, it is useful to decide whether categorization by word class is useful here all all. But after all  Strong support for permanent global ban and d:Q11608124 for me and all my accounts per User:DanielPenfield. -- Taylor 49 (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
When bringing a large group of related files or categories up for discussion, it's often easier to start with a small test case, then broaden the discussion to wider sets of items, rather than attempting to discuss them all at once. I'm not the one bringing this category up for discussion, but I don't disagree with the approach. We'll get to the other language categories when we get there. Omphalographer (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)