Category:Friendship in the Imagination

Category for non-existent parade (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

 Speedy delete - empty category. (I've boldly removed Category:Parade at Magic Kingdom from this category, as that created a category loop.) So tagged. Omphalographer (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Per Omphalographer. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:APSRTC Buses in Andhra Pradesh

accidentally created need to be deleted Karrthikuuuuu (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Closing: category deleted by creator request. @Karrthikuuuuu: : for future reference, this kind of request can often be handled more easily by speedy deletion. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Reproduction prints

This category is a needless duplicate of categories like Category:Prints and the hundreds of similar categories that exist on here for published and/or printed works. Per Google's definition of a reproduction print it's "a copy of an original artwork that is mass-produced using printing methods." Everything in Category:Prints, Category:Books, Category:Stereo cards, Category:Postcards Etc. Etc. is an "original artwork mass-produced using printing methods." We don't generally have categories for things that are inherent to everything having to do with a particular subject. Category:Paper books doesn't exist for a reason. So this category should be deleted as pointless and redundant.

Otherwise I'd like the original creator of this and the child category @Pelikana: to point out an example of a postcard, book, print, or similar on here that isn't mass-produced using printing methods. The definition of a print in Category:Prints is literally "the process of making artworks by printing." So I doubt they can. Adamant1 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This category is intended purely to be about reproduction prints of works of art, photo-mechanical repros of drawings, prints, paintings by other artists. This is about art repros as mentioned in the introduction line of the category. The original tags are: "fotomechanische afdruk" (photomechanical print), "foto reproductie" (photo reproduction). What would be a better suggestion to categorize them as 'photo technical repro prints of works of art by collection'? Where would we have to put the 5000 items of the museum that match the definition: photo technically reprinted transfer of a work of art. Where do we put 'photo copies' anyway?. Peli (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This was not about making an extra seemingly redundant cat in cat:prints, but about making a much needed extra cat in cat:reproductions , intended specifically for photomechanically reprinted reproductions (of works of art).

• 
  Drawing after a painting by Frans Hals: a copy / reproduction but not a (mass) reproduction print, the depicted image is not a photo either, treated as a drawing
• 
  Lithograph after a drawing, could be seen as a reproduction print but any photographic aspect is missing in the original, hence treated as a lithography
• 
  Photo-reproduction of an engraving after a painting by Hans Holbein; qualifies as a reproduction print (of a work of art) by means of a photograaphic procedure, treated as a reproduction photo
• 
  Photo-mechanical reprint of a photo but not a repro of a work of art; does not qualify as a reproduction print, treated as a photo of a landscape

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelikana (talk • contribs)

@Pelikana: I don't have the time or energy to address every point that you've made here and on my talk page. But you say the last image isn't a reproduction print. Per Google "A reproduction print is a copy of an original artwork that's mass-produced using printing methods." I assume there was an original work of art that the image was based on. It didn't just magically appear out of thin air. So it is in fact a "reproduction print" going by the English definition. That's a large part of the problem here. You seem to have a definition for reproduction prints based on Dutch or the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam's internal way of organizing things on their end. Neither one fits the definition of a "reproduction print" in English though.

You said on my talk page my explanation that all "prints" are technically "reproduction prints" is Sophistic. They clearly are going by the English definition of the term, which is what we go with on Commons. For all intents and purposes "Reproduction print" is tautological and redundant on our end regardless of it's how the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam organizes media internally. Adding the word "reproductions" before "print" is totally meaningless. The same goes for putting an image of something like a Albumen print in a category for reproductions. Everything in the category should just be upmerged to Category:Prints and I'm probably going to just do that if no one else has an issue with it. Probably Category:Reproductions should be gotten of to for the same reasons but that's a separate discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pelikana: How is this category meaningfully or definitionally different from Category:Prints after other works? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Never mind. I just upmerged the two categories in it. Category:Photographs of works of art isn't about reproductions. this isn't a reproduction of the statue. It's a photograph of the statue. Maybe it's a language issue but there's a difference between a "reproduction" of something and a photograph of that thing. No offense since I 100% mean this in good faith, but I think you need to look into English and better understand these concepts. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Closing because the category didn't contain reproduction prints or categories for them anyway. So I just emptied it and nominated the category for deletion. There's already Category:Prints after other works and similar categories for reproductions anyway. Making this category totally redundant in the few instances where it might have been correct. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:9595 (number)

Empty category. Previous CfD decided to keep this because it was in use. I assume it previously contained Category:Number 9595 on objects and Category:Number 9595 on vehicles, which both had since been deleted. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Deleting as empty. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Asha Geelle Diiriye

{{Category for discussion|1=Category:Asha Geelle Diiriye|month=03|year=2025}} QalasQalas (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Redirect deleted. --Achim55 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Events by organization

misses nearly all subcats; would be good to merge this into Category:Events by host Prototyperspective (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support. While I suppose it's possible for an event to have a distinct organizer and host, I don't think that's a common enough situation to be worth setting up multiple category structures for. Omphalographer (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just overlooked Category:Events by host. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll redirect events by organization. Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:BSicon

There's got to be a better way to name the subcategories in here besides using forward slashes. Category names like Category:Icons for railway descriptions/legende/logos/generic/overlay bk/. are needless obtuse and convoluted. Know one is going to find logos that way and it doesn't follow the universality principle in regards to how similar categories are named. Not to mention "legende" should be in English instead of German anyway, but regardless, the subcategories should be renamed in a way that follows the guidelines and how similar ones are named. Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment The method of subcategorization here has been pretty stable since … checks category history … 2008. Have you tried starting a discussion at Commons talk:WikiProject BSicon before starting this CfD? I would presume anyone there would be much more knowledgeable about how the subcategories are arranged and why they are that way. To me it seems similar to biological taxonomy where you start with the set of the whole and separate into groups based on broad traits, then separate those groups based on more minute details, etc. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "stable" or why it's relevant. Are you saying longstanding policies like Commons:Categories#Category_names "Category names should generally be in English" should be ignored simply because of how long it took someone to notice or bring up the problem? I'm sure Commons talk:WikiProject BSicon has their reasons for why they created the system to begin with. They are free to comment about it here if they feel the need to. I notified them about it on their talk page. I'm not super concerned with the specifics of why they decided to categorize things this way though. The important thing is that the categories are renamed and the images are organized in a way that follows the policies. It's certainly not an intuitive system for anyone outside of the WikiProject to navigate and other people look for icons on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are forward slashes (or just 'slash' or 'virgule' for short). Back-slashes are this: \ Arlo James Barnes 22:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: 1. BSicons were developed by de:wp, which is why the basic and oldest icons have German names. So it follows logically that the category names reflect their contents. (One would intuitively expect to find the  (BST) icons in a category named Category:BSicon/railway/BST rather than Category:Icons for railway descriptions/stations and stops/minor facility without passenger service.) Having said that, there has been an attempt give newer icons more internationalized or multilingual names.

2. Since you seem to want to ignore If it ain't broke, don't fix it, before you go any further I strongly urge you to present your coherent and well-thought-out replacement for the current taxonomy. (And while you're at it, don't forget to update the 900-plus-line code module that automatically determines correct parents and ensures consistency throughout the 32,000+ 30,609 existing categories.) Useddenim (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Since you seem to want to ignore If it ain't broke, don't fix it This is a discussion. Where exactly am I trying to fix anything or said I even plan to personally change the current way things are categorized? It's on the community to figure out a replacement for the current taxonomy. I merely initiated the discussion when I noticed the issue, which the last time I checked is my prerogative. That said, if it were me I'd rename categories like Category:BSicon/railway/BST to something like "BSicon railway BST icons" or similar without the slashes. It's really not that difficult. Just use normal category names without the pointless extra symbols. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

So all you've got is a concept of a plan. I was just pointing out that your desire for change may have been somewhat hasty and not fully thought out. Go disturb something else. Useddenim (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means, but that's usually just how CfDs work. They aren't meant to be fully thought out at the beginning. Otherwise they would be kind of pointless, obviously. I'm sorry if this upsets you that badly though. It certainly wasn't my intention. Your free to just not participate. Given that you seem to be the main user behind this whole thing though, I am interested in why it wouldn't be possible rename "legende" in the categories to English or to get rid of the slashes. I assume that if both were impossible you'd just say so and give a reason why. So what exactly is the stopper for either of those? There's what, like 18 instances of "legende" in your script? That's a pretty small amount of code to edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm… You're not helping your argument with mangled grammar and spelling, and leaping to conclusions. Also, attributing Module:BSicon to me is completely incorrect: Jc86035 is the primary author and I've never edited it (I don't to Lua coding) – which you would've known if you'd have bothered to check its history. The only reason that it may look like I'm the "main user" is that I've created a lot of new icons which often requires new categories to be added. As to why can't the category names be changed? I never said they couldn't, however (i) there's this thing that Wikipedia follows that's called w:wp:consensus and I'm not going to make a unilateral change to a major project; and (ii) replacing the slashes with spaces would make the category names IMHO incomprehensible. Useddenim (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to know the categories can be changed. No one asked you to make a unilateral decision and change things. I certainly didn't. That's what CfDs are for. The whole point in this is to discuss what can, or should be changed, and figure out if there's a consensus to make those changes. That's literally the process here. It's not your own personal talk page and I'm not asking you to do anything without a consensus. Regardless, see my comment at the bottom of this. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The slashes also allow a very handy way to navigate this cat subtree via the “breadcrumb” feature. (It’s unexpected to find a critique against slashes in catnames in a CfD page that necessarily has… slashes in its name and in the categories it’s automatically tagged with…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

We need to do three things:

• Mark all subcats under Category:BSicon with {{Set}} and/or {{Sets}}.
• Categorize all BSicon files and/or as many subcats as possible also under “normal” categories, such as
  •  (lLINEm) as Category:Black letter E,
  •  (KRZ) as Category:Red crosses, or
  • Category:BSicon/railway/bridge as Category:Diagrams of bridges.
  • Et c.
• Make sure all other aspects of the filenaming and catnaming framework we need to keep BSicons working are ironclad against this kind of policy-based challenges.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea of recategorizing the 300,000+ BSicon files is insane. Useddenim (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m sure our o.p. would be delighted to work on it. It would be a token of good faith and would dispell the notion that this CfD is not a mere time waste but comes from actual concern about the widest useability of all those files. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea of recategorizing the 300,000+ BSicon files is insane. I'm sure there's a middle ground where the more obtuse existing categories can at least be improved to some degree and ones going forward can follow less obtuse naming conventions without all 300,000 thousands categories being renamed whole cloth. There certainly isn't 300,000 uses of "legende" instead of "legend" and fixing that alone would make a difference. Give it some time and thought. Think about it, give other people time to comment, Etc. Etc.

This is a discussion. No one said all 300,000 categories have to changed or that it has to be done immediately. I'm more then willing to give you time to think about what's actual workable on your end, revisit it in a few months, and then retract it at that point if there's legitimately nothing that can be changed about this. Tuválkin made some reasonable suggestions. Lets give it some thought and see if anyone else wants to give their input on the issue. I'm sure there's some parts of Tuválkin's comment that be implemented in a reasonable way as long as it's planned out and implemented properly. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have had many a leader tell me they had an open-door policy, but that didn't mean I had carte blanche to go into their office at any time. If I saw something that needed to be changed, I could take it to them as long as I had a proposed solution; otherwise, they would dismiss me out of hand. Most of the time, a CfD is to discuss whether a category or multiple categories should be deleted, moved, renamed, merged, etc. All you have done is say "I don't like the way this works." What exactly are you proposing to discuss? I have yet to see any semblance of what you are requesting be done apart from "change this." You opened the discussion but expect all the other editors to figure out where to start. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an office and it's not their CfD. Regardless, when did I say that I didn't like the way this works or said anything needs to be changed? I literally gave multiple suggestions for improvements and said there's probably different ways to deal with this depending on what other people think. Your just trying to derail the discussion. Take it or leave it when to comes to my suggestions though. We're all adults here and I'm not forcing anyone here to do anything based on my opinion. Just an FYI, but I think I'm going to bow out of this on my end for now so other people have a chance to comment. I'd appreciate it if you and Useddenim did the same. The endless back and forth here really isn't productive. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You completely missed my point. You started this with what came across as "Change this thing that has worked for almost 17 years because I don't like the way it works" and only after you received resistance did you even start to recommend something. Even then, it was only a concept with no idea of how to really carry it out. The BSicon categorization was set up the way it was and there are templates and modules on multiple wikis that rely on the file nomenclature and sorting system originally set up. Your request could possibly break the syntax all those template and module calls use to display the correct icons.

You said Where exactly am I trying to fix anything in your reply to Useddenim. If you aren't trying to fix something you think is broken, then why are you trying to change it? The language policy was written in 2009, and these categories were first created in 2008. I only created my account in 2011, so I have no idea what the discussion back then entailed, but it is entirely possible this whole category tree was grandfathered.

Also, do not tell me when I can or cannot participate in a discussion, especially after I made a total of two comments. You asked for a discussion, so the onus is on you to justify the need for what you want discussed. I asked if you had tried an alternative to CfD prior to starting this, and you notified the BSIcon project only after I pointed that out. That project would consist of the experts in maintaining the BSIcon ecosystem, so that was the appropriate place to start.

If you choose not to participate anymore, that's fine. Just like this isn't an office, it also isn't an airport – you don't need to announce your departure. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jkudlick. I thought this was a collaborative project. I didn't know it was on me to figure out a solution and implement it myself without anyone else's input or opinions. I didn't say you couldn't participate in the discussion, but this specific back and forth isn't productive and that's what I would appreciate it if we ended. hopefully that clarifies things. I certainly wouldn't say you or anyone else can't or shouldn't participate in the conversation. There is a point where it becomes unproductive and off-topic when one side is going off about offices and airports though and that part of the conversation isn't worth pursuing anymore. That's all I'm saying. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Still missing the point. I am not saying you needed to have the final solution; that obviates the discussion part of "Categories for discussion". You didn't begin this discussion with a recommendation, suggestion, or offer. The starter of any discussion should come in with "This is what I want to change, and I think this is a way we could do it." This gives a starting point to any discussion and is a good-faith showing by the discussion starter. If the starter doesn't have a suggestion at the very beginning, they are extremely unlikely to find much support, which is what happened here.

As for the actual topic on hand, you previously suggested removing the slashes from a lot of the categories. Slashes and backslashes are a very common way to organize things digitally, e.g. file systems (just look at your computer's drives if you are on Windows or Linux) and URLs. Removing the slashes actually makes the categories harder to understand because the hierarchy is obfuscated. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be “implemented”. If you see a file or a category that could be improved by adding more categories to it, then please do so. That’s what thousands of users do every day for thousands of pages, regardless if those are inside the BSicon subcat tree or not.

The BSicon subcat tree is tailored to serve the needs of the project and should not be considered as a set of categories for general use (something evidenced by the possibility, widely implemented, of autocategorization based solely on the name of any BSicon file or cat), hence my suggestion (meanwhile implemented) to transclude the warning {{Set}} in all BSicon cats. That’s also why several years ago it was decided to rename all these to the current "BSicon/" preffix, replacing the previous, more generic "Icons for railway descriptions/": to stress that this is a separate tree cat.

People who are not envolved in the creation and use of BSicon files should ignore all these BSicon categories. Just like, say, people who are not envolved in PotD or Wiki-loves, should not open CfDs requesting changes in the subcat trees of those projects but rather ignore them and categorize the files as if those cats weren’t even there.

Project members have been discussing and improving this specialized subcat tree to serve our needs and none of the changes proposed in the o.p. are remotely useful.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

People who are not envolved in the creation and use of BSicon files should ignore all these BSicon categories. @Tuvalkin: In a perfect world people (including myself) would do that. Problems come in though when the BSicon categories intersect with existing categories (and categorizing systems for) icons and logos. Although I removed it, Category:Icons for railway descriptions/legende/logos was in Category:Logos of rail transport companies. Images of icons, legends, and logos are usually in separate category systems on here. So it would be impractical and go against the universality principle to have a category for "icon/legend/logos" (whatever those are) as a subcategory of one for logos.

The fact is that people who aren't involved in the creation and use of BSicon files ignoring the BSicon categories doesn't work when they intersect with the exiting category systems for logos and icons. I've been organizing images of logos for years and I'm forced to deal with the BSicon categories sometimes as part of that. I'm more then willing to just remove categories for "icon/legend/logos" from ones for logos when I see them. But it doesn't seem like a good thing to completely separate BSicons from the main category structure. I get that the BSicon categories aren't for general use, but they are interspersed with existing category structures in some places and should follow the same naming scheme as similar ones in those cases. I'm fine with just removing the categories from exiting ones for logos going forward if renaming the categories or dealing with it some other way isn't practical though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: A bit of history: the migration from German to English category names started in April 2013, but has continued very sporadically since; and the full-fledged change from Category:Icons for railway descriptions/…  to  Category/BSicon/… was implemented from September 2013 onward. Useddenim (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm volunteerly retracting this. See my last comment. The BSicon categories cause issues when they intersect with the normal category system since categories for "icon/legend/logos" aren't a thing on here. I started the CfD due to those problems. It's clear that people who are involved in the BSicon project don't care and think people should just ignore the whole thing. I guess that's my bad for not knowing people could create their own side projects and category systems on here. The universality principle clearly doesn't apply to certain category systems and/or groups of people involved in creating them. So I'll just be removing BSicon categories from ones for logos when I see them going forward. Hopefully that's a compromise everyone involved in this will be satisfied with. It seems less then ideal, but whatever. It's better then this nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Conon and Family Performing a Sacrifice

Conon or Konon? 186.175.224.93 02:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Merging this discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Konons family fresco. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Churches of Christ churches

A move request was made by The Bushranger with the following reason:

"Churches of Christ churches" is redundant plurization. Either this should be at the suggested target or just upmerged to Category:Churches of Christ, but the current name is just wrong. All the subcats will need to be moved as well, of course"

However, "Churches of Christ" is apparently the actual name of an organization. The current title may sound awkward, but I think it's valid. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose move. Category:Churches of Christ is for media about the religious denomination in general; this category is for photographs of churches belonging to that denomination. Omphalographer (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's their actual name? Grammar weeps. But in that case, then the request can be withdrawn. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Proposal withdrawn
Actions	none
Participants	Omphalographer (talk · contribs) The Bushranger (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Science fiction in the 1900s

This is inappropriately in Category:1900s - Put there by a template, as are several others. I dont know how to edit templates. Can someone help? Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This category is being applied by {{Decade by category navbox}} (which is, amusingly, also applying Category:0s to itself). Omphalographer (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

so can it be editted so things like Category:Cross-country skiing in the 1900s go into a subcategory, not into Category:1900s? Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This sounds more like a template discussion than a category discussion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

where are template discussions? Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Maybe on the template talk page, but more people would see it at the Village pump. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed it, the category now uses {{Science fiction by decade}} only, and I moved the navbox into the template. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Closed issue resolved -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:كمال سلمان العنزي

Empty and Delete 186.174.89.3 21:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Will be useless when the one file is deleted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Deleted, empty orphan cat -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Statues of Astarte(goddess)

Misspelled and empty, as well as redundant פעמי-עליון (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Deleted, misnamed empty cat -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Globular Amphora phenotype

Empty category that doesn't make sense; how can we expect files showing a "phenotype" (of people?) of a culture which is defined by artefacts (which cannot tell us about how the people looked who made them)? Is this just racist nonsense? Bücherfresser (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Currently empty, and placing any image in this category would amount to wild speculation. The Globular Amphora culture existed ca. 5,000 years ago; we can't accurately say what these people looked like. Omphalographer (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Deleted per above, empty. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Human African vulva

Human African?! Created by a racist? 186.173.3.110 21:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete — When dealing with biological concepts like human vulva, we're not concerned with someone's race, ethnicity, religion, or even gender (as social construct). We're generally only concerned with someone's sex (biological equivalent of gender) or development stage (baby, child, adolescent, adult, old) when dealing with such biological concepts. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Emptied and Deleted per nom & discussion. (Most media were already in other better categories, one that wasn't recategorized; dubious category, some apparently people of color elsewhere than Africa.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Content media by years - Supported by Wikimedia UK - 2014

iPod 8GB Jeankcv (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Test edit, nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:German-Russian Museum Berlin-Karlshorst

the name of museum is not correct in the link and in Ukrainian language MBK-Sammlung (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done: Category and gallery renamed. --Achim55 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Taken with I'm Back FIlm

deletion request because of typo & the category already exists without typo 03.fili (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@03.fili: Deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Jesse Daniel Brown

Empty category, formerly used by globally locked account. Unlikely to find any media to fit this category. WikiDan61 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So why are we having a CfD? Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Category, criterion C2. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedy-deleted, criterion C2. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buses on route eupload in Moscow

Error category, probably to be deleted ATI1999 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Closing -- category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified 1902 Krupp howitzer barrel in the Polish Army Museum

Overly specific and empty The Proffesor (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Proffesor: Deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Transamerica Pyramid in 2015

No parallel category for any other year, and only three photos in this category. Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support merge. The building didn't look substantially different in 2015 than it did in 2005, or than it does today. Omphalographer (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	merge to Category:Exterior of the Transamerica Pyramid, since all files are of the exterior
Participants	Jmabel (talk · contribs) Omphalographer (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Big, Bigger, Biggest

Inappropriate for a category, as this is non-defining on the members. This should be a list instead. Whether it belongs on Commons at all is another question, as it's very close to COM:CSD#GA2. As it is, this category is entirely useless anyway as it contains no information on the program or links to anything about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Useless category. Cutlass^Ciera 12:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Achim55: would you be opposed to just straight SDing this category? I see you've already warned the IP for this nonsense. Cutlass^Ciera 12:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I just found out it refers to en:Big, Bigger, Biggest. Not sure whether a Commons cat is appropriate or not. --Achim55 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Not appropriate, IMO. As Andy said, the fact that a structure was discussed on a TV show is not a defining property of that structure. If there were freely licensed media related to this TV series (like logos, screenshots, or video clips), it'd certainly be appropriate to have the category and place that media in it - but we don't appear to have any currently, so this category serves no purpose. Omphalographer (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this about machos who upload pictures of their penis? 🤔 186.175.224.93 03:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Not yet, but... -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	empty cat and delete
Participants	Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) Cutlass (talk · contribs) Achim55 (talk · contribs) Omphalographer (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Auntof6 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sex or gender

A textbook example of a union category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. The parent categories for both Category:Sex and Category:Gender could use some attention, but this certainly isn't useful as a shared parent to the two. Omphalographer (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	empty cat and delete
Participants	Sbb1413 (talk · contribs) Omphalographer (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Auntof6 (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified cricket grounds in England

Specific now-empty category. Sam Walton (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• No problem with its removal, if this is what you are indicating, although it might be of some use in the future. I suppose the cat could be reintroduced if necessary. Acabashi (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Acabashi That was my thinking - if a sufficient number of images of cricket grounds are added to Unidentified locations in England we could always recreate it, but that seems unlikely to me. Sam Walton (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	delete cat
Participants	Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) Acabashi (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Auntof6 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bichon Frisé and Poodles

Bichon Frisé and Poodles Arnulfo1952 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Arnulfo1952: Closing: category has been deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gmina Białobrzegi, powiat białobrzeski

Hello User:VVerka5. You created this category, but I don't think it is needed. I've read what you said on Village Pump, but the old name Category:Gmina Białobrzegi, Masovian Voivodeship is IMO more suitable, because there is only one gmina called Białobrzegi in Masovian Voivodeship. Other Białobrzegi you have mentioned are a part of Gmina Nieporęt, and there's simply no need to change name of the whole category. IMO categories previously placed in Category:Gmina Białobrzegi, Masovian Voivodeship should return there and this category shall be deleted. I'm always open to discussion, so please tell me what you think about this. I'd also love to see some more experienced users looking at this problem. Mikinisk (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right, the new name is clearly a mistake. In the Masovian Voivodeship, there's only one gmina, Bialobrzegi, and renaming it makes no sense and would ultimately lead to chaos. 2A02:3100:8007:F300:9D17:3FFE:F16D:A20C 08:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting changes. Now we need an admin to  Delete Category:Gmina Białobrzegi, powiat białobrzeski. Mikinisk (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	delete category, which is already empty
Participants	Mikinisk (talk · contribs) 2A02:3100:8007:F300:9D17:3FFE:F16D:A20C (talk · contribs) VVerka5 (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Brachycerus sp.

How can I request the delition of this category? Brachycerus sp. is too general. I should have been more specific like the other categories within this species. Petro Stelte (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{speedy|U1}} for you. See COM:CSD for valid reasons for simple speedy deletions (those where no-one is expected to challenge them). Requests by a recent creator would be one of those reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Petro Stelte (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Deleted as empty.-- Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Donejakue Bidea- Gares

Donejakue Bidea-Gares instead of Donejakue Bidea- Gares (no gap, please) NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, NearEMPTiness. Closing this discussion now. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:History of La Plata, Argentina

Delete, I could not find the category before, but it already exits Lmalena (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Martha Jefferson

This image fails verification. The source linkage cited here at Commons - http://www.firstladies.org/images/biographies/jefferson/1.jpg - has gone dead. The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia at the Monticello website https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/martha-wayles-skelton-jefferson/ clearly states that "There are no known portraits of Martha Wayles Jefferson." In my opinion, the original image and its variant should both be deleted. Shearonink (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a procedural matter - if you'd like these files to be deleted, please bring them to discussion at COM:DR. For what it's worth, there's an archived copy of the source page at http://web.archive.org/web/20150228063546/http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=3 - but I agree that it's unclear whether this is a historical depiction which is PD due to age, or if it's a modern creation which may be copyrighted by the National First Ladies' Library. Omphalographer (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but apparently I can't do the thing which I ought to do which is file a request for a mass deletion which would actually be a complete Category deletion at COMːDR because I am apparently not enough of an established user over here on Commons. I was kind of surprised by that since I do have 352 edits here. Don't know how to work around this issue since it is clear from the Jefferson Encyclopedia article on Martha Wayles Jefferson that are no known portraits of her. Plus the possible "National First Ladies' Library" copyright issue. (And MWJ wasn't a First Lady since she died before Jefferson became President.) --Shearonink (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It is also very possible that I am misunderstanding the instructions to file these deletion requests. I am more experienced over on WP. I'll try again later. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep The topic has 26 WP articles so is clearly notable so as noted if deletion is desired due to problems with the files the 2 files need to be deleted and the category can be deleted as empty but otherwise I'd expect it would pass Commons:Category inclusion criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Done, both Files have been nominated for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martha Jefferson.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martha Jefferson 2.jpg. - Shearonink (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The files have already been nominated for deletion. If they were to be deleted, then the category would have to be deleted as empty. However, in the meantime, there's no reason to keep this discussion open, so I'm closing it. Pinging Shearonink, Omphalographer and Crouch, Swale. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:QIC

Possibly ambiguous, could be mistaken to mean Commons:Quality images candidates or something else? English Wikipedia and most of the other languages use "Quarter-inch cartridge" for this topic, with en:QIC being a disambig page. Brainy J (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Quarter-inch cartridge without leaving a redirect. Leaving a redirect will still tempt users to put QI candidates under Category:QIC, which will then be (mis)categorized to Category:Quarter-inch cartridge. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support to match Wikipedia and avoid ambiguity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Brainy J, Sbb1413, Crouch, Swale: Given that there was consensus here, I moved the category. For the time being, I did not create a dab page, as those pages which populate the enwiki dab page do not exist here, but it can be created in the future. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Italy

There are three categories with almost the same name and scope ("Ancient Italy", "Ancient Italian history" and "Antiquity of Italy"), so maybe it would be a good idea to merge them, but I am not sure which one of them is preferrable. Bücherfresser (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Ancient Italy, in line with various "ancient [country]" categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Conclusion: Both "Ancient Italian history" and "Antiquity of Italy" redirect to "Ancient Italy" now. Bücherfresser (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biological ethnicity

What is this category for? By now, the only subcategory is "Jews", so I absolutely don't understand the scope of this category. As far as I know, it is possible to convert to Judaism, so it is more of a sociocultural than a biological ethnicity. Are there even examples for purely biological ethnicity? (I do not know of any.) Bücherfresser (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete — Like caste, race or religion, ethnicity is purely a social construct, and it has nothing to do with the actual biology. People can change their ethnic identity by either associating or assimilating themselves to that ethnicity, or by creating a new ethnic group entirely. Even the Jews have had assimilated to European ethnicities, if partly, giving rise to various "Judeo-" sub-ethnicities. Also, we're mainly interested to group people based on their ethnicities, and we're not concerned with whether an ethnic group is "biologically valid" or not. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom & discussion. Cat "Jews" removed from this category, which is now empty. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Tagged the category with {{SD}} as an empty category.
Participants	Bücherfresser (talk · contribs) Infrogmation (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Station Bar, Dewsbury railway station

Isn't this the same as Category:Station Hotel, Dewsbury? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

no, this is a bar converted from a disused waiting room at Dewsbury railway station. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So I looked at their geographical location in the camera location and the hotel and bar are separate locations near the station. However, the station bar only has one image, and the wikidata infobox belongs to the hotel, so the bar's category should probably be deleted, and the image moved to parent categor(y/ies). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I've added the categories to the hotel. I guess now the main thing is if we keep the bar as a separate category or not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Is File:The West Riding, Dewsbury Station - geograph.org.uk - 489640.jpg the bar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks inconclusive- plus none of the images of the inside of the bar on maps make me certain whether it is or it is not the same bar. The station bar location comes out in its parking lot though. As this above image is not in any of the subcategories, I would suggest putting the station bar image in "pubs in dewsbury to" and deleting the station bar category as I could not find any bar that uses that name- might just be a local name at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: Per Mtaylor848's comment about is being from the disused waiting room, according to WhatPub the West Riding was from the waiting rooms and there is another image File:The West Riding pub, Dewsbury railway station - geograph.org.uk - 7280045.jpg. If this is the same pub then it should probably be renamed to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury but if not we could delete the "Station Bar" category and create a new category for the West Riding pub. Even though the listing is for the whole station the pub seems to be a distinct enough named place to have its own category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, all this evidence does make sense. You should add that image to the category, and request a renaming.(I am not sure if the current name should redirect to the new name, as "station bar" is probably incorrect and it probably never has been called that-but I don't exactly know how redirects on commons work.) Great work on finding evidence that Mtaylor848 was correct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Compare the image on Trip Advisor with the image here, same black cupboards with hooks, same mats with holes and same black price notices with white writing. I think we should wait and see what Mtaylor848 says about keeping the redirect. Per Commons:Category inclusion criteria that I wrote I think in most cases if a name of a topic can be verified even if not notable on Wikipedia and even if not the most reliable sources then in most cases a category with just 2 pages is enough but I think if its a descriptive name then I think more like 5 or even 10 pages would be needed. If the category is only for the bar (in the sense of the place where you order the drink and food) then I don't think we would need a separate category from the rest of the pub unless there are many images of only the bar, most pubs and other buildings just have the images for the interior in the same category (and are placed in Category:Interiors of pubs) put sometimes (often for churches) a sub category for the interior is created if there are lots of images. Given it appears that the author intended this to be about the whole pub rather than just the bar its self since "bar" is often used to mean the whole pub I think we're fine with just renaming this (as opposed to creating a new category) but the question of if the redirect should be kept remains. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, renaming would be good, and would be better without leaving a redirect(especially bcs it seems unlikely anything looks to the current category). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mtaylor848: Do you have any objections to either the proposed rename to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury or not leaving a redirect behind at Category:Station Bar, Dewsbury railway station if renamed? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The result was rename to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury, the category now has 5 images and sources support this name and there were no objections to the suggested rename. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)