Category:People sitting on rocks outdoors

Upmerge to "Category:People sitting on rocks", as no image of people sitting on a rock at home is available. E4024 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. But we have parent Category:People sitting outdoors, and if there is the category Category:People sitting on rocks, then it seems to be not fit there--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Quirino Highway (Caloocan City section)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay City section).

Redundant to Category:Quirino Highway encouraging redundancy and replication. All files have been moved there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If the highway is long enough to have sections, I think it's valid to have sub-categories for the most prominent sections. This category should be kept as a subcategory of Category:Quirino Highway and repopulated. —capmo (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Capmo: that encourages redundancy. The creator of the subcategory had issues before about highly redundant images (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro#Files uploaded by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) 3). I actually put all files to Category:Quirino Highway, so that other users or I may be able to conduct cleanup in removing unused, excessive and redundant images leaning towards COM:SPAM. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at the photos and agree with you that most of them are of little value to the project and could possibly be deleted (but that is another discussion). Anyway, those that are kept would benefit from being identified by sections, maybe. —capmo (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Capmo@JWilz12345: the nominated category is empty. Should we repopulate the category? If not, then empty category will be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There are subcategories for 5 other "sections" of the Quirino Highway, so yes, I think this one could be kept and repopulated. —capmo (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Capmo: the sections of the highway are not noteworthy, and the highway itself is just a plain road, no different from Category:Quezon Boulevard. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this, I leave the decision for you. For consistency sake, though, we should either keep all section subcategories, or delete them all. —capmo (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials to sportspeople by country of origin

The subcats, should they not be "sportspeople from" instead of "sportspeople of"? E4024 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. That would match the parent categories, which are all "Sportspeople from [country]". - Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Support: solution per nomination Estopedist1 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Horadiz (city)

This category is about en:Horadiz, a city which is the de facto capital of Fuzuli District of Azerbaijan. It was named as "Category:Horadiz" before a user moved the category to "Category:Horadiz (city)". There is also a village with the same name but the city is a larger settlement and the village does not have a category page right now. Commons:Categories states that "category names should generally be in English." When we look at the English Wikipedia, we can see how they named en:Horadiz (city) and en:Horadiz (village) (village). Azerbaijani Wikipedia follows the same naming style (az:Horadiz and az:Horadiz (kənd)). The category page should be renamed as "Category:Horadiz".--BSRF (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Category names should be in English" does not mean "Category names should correspond perfectly with English Wikipedia." If there are two places named Horadiz, I don't see a problem with disambiguating them, even if there is no village category at the moment. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the user in question has been notified of this discussion: @Tozina: . - Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The city of Horadiz is a district capital but the village of Horadiz is a ghost town due to the war in the region. The category should be renamed per Commons:Category disambiguation, besides Commons:Categories.--BSRF (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We have a category tree for ghost towns if images get uploaded. What in those two pages are you referring to? - Themightyquill (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The city of Horadiz is the primary topic. Most of the people who search for Horadiz, search for the city. That's what I'm referring to.--BSRF (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't here for a time. - First I wish to say: English WP as well as AZ WP or German WP have some mistakes in declaration of things or locations; in their own country/contries as well as concerning other countries. This is simply due to the nature of this and developments. So, we should decide without touching this. Second: With a view to have a chance to order all the AZ-files without categories and to categorize the year of the subjects of the AZ-pictures I started to end the spelling chaos in AZ-location-categories. To have a correct base I use the topical İnzibati Ərazi Bölgüsü Təsnifatı, 2019 from AZ government (authority for statistics), year 2020, document AZS 882:2020. Here you can read the territorial segmentation and likewise administrative units (not allways the same). On page 45 you can read there are TWO location with the same name in Füzuli Rayon: CITY Horadiz and VILLAGE Horadiz. Maybe NOW is the village more a ghost location (like other formerly occupied with ruins). But from the past could someone upload files for the village, too. It is quite amazing, how many pictures there are for some tiny former villages. Problem will start, if/when (mainly foreign/tourist) uploaders are unaware, that Horadiz in Füzuli is not every time the same Horadiz in Füzuli. So by having only Horadiz as cat it is very fast to put pictures of the village in cat of the city without thinking about. - AZ-government will decide, which villages will be rebuilt, which are being emptied and disappear. We will read it in next document or the year after next. In case of eliminating Horadiz (village) would it be a former village and get another second parents cat - so it is created/filled until then. But situation remains the same. There are two locations in Füzuli Rayon with the name Horadiz, a city and a (maybe soon former) village. And they are not close to each other. Tozina (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

solution per @BSRF. The same name village is inferior. Estopedist1 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

BSRF, Themightyquill, Tozina, Estopedist1 Can you please end the discussion? — Moses (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What would have to be done? Tozina (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

BSRF is arguing primary topic should not need disambiguation, but that's not a rule at commons, just at wikipedia. Disambiguation usually makes sense here. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Île-de-France in the 13th century

• Category:Present-day Île-de-France in the 13th century

Is there a difference between this category and Category:Present-day Île-de-France in the 13th century? Was one referring to the historic province? Since this administrative region was started in 2016, present-day makes more sense. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2016 ??? I think your sources are really really bad. The delimitations from nowadays are from 1941 and the real birth of the région is from 1955. Concerning the

Category:Present-day Île-de-France in the 13th century, it's obviously, like about the other regions a total nonsense. I've seen this just for the France. Is there Category:Present-day United States in the 13th century or just Category:United States in the 13th century? Same for Category:Belgium in the 13th century, Category:Bavaria in the 13th century and every country or region you can imagine. If people are wise enough to understand what you mean if you talk from Belgium or the USA before 1830 and 1776 and that Bavaria from now is different with what was Bavaria then, why couldn't they understand that Île-de-France, without any (province) precision, is the administrative région from now? It's even dumber when you talk about régions that don't wear the name of a former province like Bourgogne-Franche-Comté or Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur as there was never an area called with these names and having a different territory. Birdie (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't seen this elsewhere, but it's certainly something we struggle with elsewhere - applying current borders to time periods when they didn't exist. We haven't found a good solution yet, but using "present-day" is at least innovative, even if I'm not sure it's useful. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Birdie and Themightyquill: My apologies. I was looking at Template:Departments of France which can be confusing. As such, should both be deleted? My understanding is that at that time, France was organized into provinces under the en:Kingdom of France which can become a terrible organizational plan but I think a preferable one to based on the current department borders created 700 years later. If so, then it would be the same name (sort of) but this would be these boundaries but organized under the provinces of France template (maybe Category:Province of Ile-de-France in the 13th century to split the province from the current region). The France categories are mess as many as organized into the departments and/or the regions at the same time but since not all of them have been created, a lot do not connect to the actual France by year category. The same problem occurs with England, Wales, and Scotland but the same name is put together (but with different templates) rather than this "present-day" nonsense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Though not an answer to your question and more of a remark following Themightyquill's, I think it is important to keep in mind that relative indications of time (see en:MOS:RELTIME) such as "present-day" can become ambiguous over time. Who knows, in a few years they might reorganise Île-de-France into a new entity with completely different borders. Then what? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like there are over 2000 of such "present-day" categories (search for intitle:"present-day" and use the Category filter). --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, with the 2016 changes, you end up with a former region like Category:Rhône-Alpes by year which is just a subcategory of Category:Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes by year. Each new change would result in possibly hundreds of older categories being renamed (for the former groupings) and a creation of hundreds of a parent shell category, all of which is entirely unique to France. It seems more logical to just say "this area was created from these areas and go look over at those categories to find out what happened then." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The territorial organization of France during the Ancien Régime was extremely complicated. Of course there were the provinces which are the more famous. But there were also généralités that have very different limits and were more important in the daily lives. The intendants, the bishops and the courts had also different territories. This is the reason why the départements were created. A simplification was absolutely necesary. I think the names used have to be the ones from now. Near the borders of certain provinces, it's very difficult to know whom the parrishes were belonging. And it's even worse in earlier times with the Roman pagus.

I agree with HyperGaruda, present day can be obsolete very fast. Some communes change of departments and regions when joining a Communauté de communes or when being absorbed by other commune so present day in 2016 isn't present day in 2021. The categories have now very different situations:

1) Regions bearing the name of a former province with almost the same borders : Category:Corsica in the 13th century. Martinique and Réunion have even always kept the same borders. Using Present day is meaningless in these cases.

2) Regions bearing the name of a former province with different borders : Category:Bretagne in the 13th century, Category:Île-de-France in the 13th century, Category:Normandie in the 13th century. Weirdly, Category:Present day Bretagne in the 13th century doesn't exist contrary to the other regions. In this case, it can be interesting to indicate it's about the régions of nowadays even if it can be obvious. Imho, I would prefer a cat see also Bretagne (province) in the 13th-century template added to the pages.

3) Regions bearing a new name: every other regions. In this case, present day is useless and brings just the problem that present day changes of meaning with the time. Present day Grand Est means nothing, Grand Est is always present day; so Grand Est in the 13th-century can just mean the territory that will be 700 years later belonging to Grand Est and it should need no further precision. --Birdie (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I guess you want to talk about the stupid (department) precision that follow most of the French departments and makes that when you use "all" in the template "Departments of France", you have a lot of departments that appear red as the simple name is only used (and appear blue without "all"). Of course, when you talk about a church or a commune, there is NO necessity to precise (department) after in the Loire or in the Rhône as there have never been any subaquatic church or commune created in the Loire River. (department) should only be used with Ardennes and Jura. Birdie (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that now that I've looked over the template in more detail. I was using it to make sure I found all the department but I see what you mean. I'll remove that. Thanks! As for naming, yeah, that's worth discussing on a department or department basis. Maybe suggest the renaming at the parent category level like done for this discussion of Highland in Scotland? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Tourist tents

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Frame tents.

What is this category for, what is its purpose? There are many, many tents which are being used by tourists, should they all be in this category? Or should there be a new category in Category:Tents "Category:Tents by use/purpose" (or something like this) with subcategories for tourists, nomads, military, entertainment, scouting and so on? JopkeB (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is just for camping tents, and badly named. I created Category:Tents by use before I saw this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Scientific laws

Should be joined with Category:Empirical laws. The only category that would go under Category:Scientific laws but not Category:Empirical laws would be Category:Mathematical theorems, and we don't need a category that can never have more than 2 members. Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: enwiki en:Category:Scientific laws is well-populated Estopedist1 (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Indeed. It holds articles and subcategories about empirical laws from natural sciences (they should be moved to en:Category:Empirical laws‎), and mathematical laws (strange enough, only en:Category:Statistical laws‎, but not en:Category:Mathematical theorems, this should be fixed), thus confirming my above claim. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt: try to reach consensus in enwiki. If you have reached consensus, we can apply enwiki solutions in Commons Estopedist1 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Good idea; I'll try to find a place in enwiki where this issue can be discussed. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I have posted it at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Science_theory_expert_needed:_Category:Scientific_laws_vs_Category:Empirical_laws. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt and Estopedist1: The discussion on EN-WP has been closed on 4 March 2022. The result of the discussion was: keep EN-WP Category:Scientific laws. How do we now go on here? JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_16#Category:Scientific_laws just settled the question whether to delete en:Category:Scientific laws, but refused to discuss whether it should be merged with en:Category:Empirical laws. However, my main intent was to settle the merge discussion. See also the related -unsettled- discussion at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy/Archive_22#Science_theory_expert_needed:_Category:Scientific_laws_vs_Category:Empirical_laws.

If you look at en:Category:Scientific laws, you find en:Category:Empirical laws‎ below it, and e.g. en:Category:Laws of thermodynamics in both of them, violating en:WP:OVERCAT. That is to say, the category structure below en:Category:Scientific laws is still a mess, and we should't try to duplicate it at commons.

I'd still favor that Category:Scientific laws is merged with Category:Empirical laws, however I won't object any other outcome of this discussion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jochen Burghardt and Estopedist1: Because:

• there is no agreement on merger and
• in EN-WP both categories have been kept (because there is a (small) difference; I think that is also true for Economics: there are a lot of economic laws, some have been proven empiracally, others may not have been but the opposite has not been proven either, and there are almost always exceptions),

I propose to keep both categories. Do you agree? If not: do you have a proposal how to come to an agreement? If there are no objections over two weeks, I'll close this discussion and keep both categories. --JopkeB (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same as on 5 Sep 2023: I'd still favor that Category:Scientific laws is merged with Category:Empirical laws, however I won't object any other outcome of this discussion. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

So what is your proposal to come to an agreement or how would you close this discussion? JopkeB (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Because there is no answer to my last question, I see no possibility to close this discussion, and I withdraw. JopkeB (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:House of Miloradovich

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:House of Dejanović.

Moved to Category:Miloradović noble family per en:Miloradović noble family and Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/02/Category:House of Dejanović. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

 Support category move. Abzeronow (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Caravans (mobile home)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Mobile buildings.

Is Category:Caravans (mobile home) redundant with Category:Mobile homes? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with yes. "Caravan" is the European/British/UK term. Whereas, "mobile home" is the American. They mean the same thing though. IMO mobile home is the correct category. Since the term caravan can have many different meanings then just a mobile home outside of Britain, but mobile homes always mean mobile homes. That said, some of the stuff Category:Mobile homes are not really considered mobile homes in America. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Mobile home has a very specific meaning in North America, as well as a potentially broader understanding of homes which are mobile. I suggest a split into Category:Mobile housing with Category:Mobile homes and Category:Recreational vehicles as subcategories. I think all the subcategories of Category:Caravans (mobile home) can be renamed "recreational vehicles" since they include both Category:Travel trailers and Category:Motorhomes but not Category:Mobile homes or Category:Manufactured homes (often called "mobile homes" in North America). -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• In Europe caravans are mobile homes, but not all mobile homes are caravans. Caravans can be transported behind a car, as a trailer, they are for vacations and are only temporary homes. Other mobile homes are much larger and can only be transported with a truck, they can be used to live in permanently or during summer season, like Shepherd's wagons‎. Construction trailers‎ need also a truck to transport them, but are for temporary stays, they are used as a shelter for construction workers (and others), during daytime. So please do not merge Caravans and Mobile homes. My definition of a mobile home: a dwelling that can be moved; I think this should be the main/umbrella category. JopkeB (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not. Caravans (there are many subvarieties, some historical, and our structure here isn't ideal) are mobile and towed behind a vehicle, which may be as small as a domestic car or even a motorbike. Mobile homes are not mobile. They are a variety of pre-fabricated portable housing, often temporary housing for holidays, and they range between wheeled vehicles which can be pulled by a larger vehicle (pickup, SUV or truck) through to clip-together boxes delivered by a crane from the back of a truck. But while many mobile homes have permanently attached wheels and a towbar, they're usually not equipped for towing on a public highway: the wheels are just to aid their delivery on site, and they have to be brought there on the back of a truck, then towed slowly into position. Most are 'mobile' on their wheels for one journey of a few hudred yards at most. Unsurprisingly, mobile homes are often bigger than caravans. In the UK they're often wider, such that this width alone would stop them being used as towed trailer caravans. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• No. Caravans refer to a specific type of vehicle (or more specifically, an attachment to a vehicle). Mobile homes are a broader umbrella category. And like Andy points out, many mobile homes are not actually mobile while caravans are. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Files from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Flickr stream (to check)

does any old folk know what is supposed to be checked? RZuo (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

By the looks of it, it's a whole lot of pictures of notable people most of which haven't been categorized properly or at all. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo and Themightyquill: "to check"-categories should have the hatnote which explain the situation--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Laker Girls

I looked for this category at Category:Los Angeles Lakers cheerleaders. Consistency with other, similar, categories would require that. Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's an equivalent to en:WP:Common names here, but it would seem to make sense to list the team by the name by which they are best known. Anything wrong with using a soft redirect? —howcheng {chat} 06:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Keep @Geo Swan and Howcheng: Enwiki has en:Laker Girls, it seems to be official name. The redirect from "... cheerleaders" is up to you--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• The alternate choice would be for the names of categories for this, and other categories about cheerleaders to (1) follow a consistent pattern; (2) actually include the term "cheerleaders". Picking a shibbolith, a name that is only familiar to insiders, is helpful to insiders, but useless to those from outside the world of American sports teams, and their associated cheerleaders. Under this reasoning Category:Laker Girls would be the redirect.
• Using the name we think insiders prefer is, well, subjective, and provincial. For lots of topics we have competing groups of insiders, who insist that their preferred name is the name the topic known by, and all other names are mere footnotes.
• The Three Gorges Dam has an enormous basin, that can lift a 3,000 tonne boat up to the top of the dam about ten times as fast as a set of traditional locks. It is called a "shiplift" when translated into English. There are a lot of people who would swear this is the name this technology is universally known by. But in the UK, which has a couple of well known examples, this technology is known as a "boatlift". A lot of people will swear this is the univeral name. Problematically, both boatlift and shiplift are more often used for cranes used to lift a vessel out of the water for storage, or maintenance. "Lift lock", the name this technology is known by here in Canada. German speaking nations have one of their double barrelled German names for this technology.
• The technology known variously as streetcars, trams, trolleys, has had the highest order category named tram. Because one clique of insiders got there first and asserted it was the name this technology was universally known as.
• A decade or so ago someone renamed Category:Lake freighters to Category:Lakers, even though Lakers could be confused with the sports team.
• So, yeah, I am sticking to my guns, and continue to believe Category:Laker Girls should redirect to Category:Los Angeles Lakers cheerleaders, and not vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:History of the Hetzdorfer Viadukt

I fear that this is a redundant (potentially nonsense) category. Everything before now qualifies as "history", therefore how to decide between categorizing media at Category:Hetzdorfer Viadukt and at this category? In my opinion this is a redundant, unuseful category. Category:Hetzdorfer Viadukt is fully enough, especially as the whole bridge is not used for rail transport anymore. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kleeblatt187: It is a common and standard way of categorization that if we have a large number of historical images of any place or object, we create a special subcategory for them. If necessary, such a category can be further structured (by century, before/past reconstruction or repurposing etc.). If this particular bridge is no longer used for railway traffic, then the more relevant is the difference between historical pictures from the time when it was functional, and today's pictures from the time when the bridge only serves as a monument. It is certainly not "unuseful" nor "redundant" nor even "nonsense" to separate history from the present, or to sort photos by period. Therefore, there is no relevant reason to delete this category.

Theoretically, there could be a problem in drawing the line between "history" and "the present". However, we have standard best practices across the Commons to address this issue. In the case of the Hetzdorfer Viadukt, so far, the border is very clear and distinct.

I didn't understand why we should waste our time discussing this meaningful, useful and standard category. If you want to do something useful, try to focus more on constructive work. For example, Category:Zschopau (river) contains 499 unsorted, unorganized files. However, this can be solved by someone who has a sense of structuring content. --ŠJů (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments! To be honest: I'm not concerned about less than 100 files at Category:Hetzdorfer Viadukt. But I do worry about those files. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless: Where do you suppose images from the 1960s or the 1990s to be categorized, at Category:History of the Hetzdorfer Viadukt or rather at Category:Hetzdorfer Viadukt? At least I fear that the border is not obviously „very clear and distinct“ Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kleeblatt187: If useful, such a category can be further structured (by century, decade, before/past reconstruction or repurposing etc.). For now, the Brück & Sohn postcards are all from 1900s – 1920s and I can see no images from 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. As soon as they appear, we can begin to address the question of whether it is appropriate to separate them in the categorization as well, and in what way. At the moment, we have a fairly large divide between the period of historical postcards and the period of modern digital photography, and the only scan from early 1990s is IMHO closer to the today's photos. It would also be possible to set aside Brück & Sohn postcards to their specific subcategory, if we want to separate them from other pictures from the same period. --ŠJů (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most reasonable would probably be to move Category:History of the Hetzdorfer Viadukt to Category:Postcards of Hetzdorfer Viadukt. This would truely be „very clear and distinct“ – and fair enough as a subcategorization if still wanted and needed. And any other (non-postcard) file, no matter from which decade, remains at Category:Hetzdorfer Viadukt. Very clear and distinct. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ŠJů: solution per @Kleeblatt187 (stated on 4 June 2021) Estopedist1 (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Île St. Pierre

Rename to Category:Île St. Pierre, Farquhar to avoid confusion with Category:Île St. Pierre (Praslin). See en:St. Pierre Island, Farquhar. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, then this page could become a dab. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Then tomorrow someone else would come and say "why is one of them with a parenthesis and the other with a comma, harmonize them"... --E4024 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support matches EN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Scott Bradlee & Postmodern Jukebox

While Scott Bradlee is the brains behind Postmodern Jukebox I question having a single category for him and the project. Having a single combined category does not accommodate projects he starts that are not connected, or are peripherally connected to his main project. And it does not accommodate categorizing the photos of notable musicans he works with. Note: Bradlee has at least one more YouTube channel, for his solo medlies.

Now that there are so many images Category:Postmodern Jukebox should be subcategorized into Category:Postmodern Jukebox on tour, and Category:Postmodern Jukebox, in Germany, Category:Postmodern Jukebox in Cologne, and so on... maybe by tour, or by year, as well...

Finally Category:Scott Bradlee should be a distinct category. Geo Swan (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Category:Scott Bradlee exists (opened by the nominator). Category:Postmodern Jukebox -per this moment- is an RD (also made by the nominator) to the title being discussed. Therefore that one ("Category:Postmodern Jukebox") must be opened as a distinct cat. Delete the cat with << & >>. --E4024 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. They call themselves Scott Bradlee's Postmodern Jukebox also, that may become a redirect to Postmodern Jukebox. Tekstman (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• E4024, after reading your comment I honestly can't understand whether you are agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me. Could you please be clearer as to which category you are suggesting should be deleted? Tekstman, similarly, could you clarify what you mean?

  As I noted, above, Bradlee posts lots of YouTube videos, where he performs instrumental mash-ups, that are not related to Postmodern Jukebox, at all. Geo Swan (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Ége

I cannot understand the need to this cat (or its place in the cat tree). No WD, no articles... E4024 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well it does have a sub category that has articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Keep per Commons:Category inclusion criteria--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Monuments historiques in Senegal

Merge Category:Monuments historiques in Senegal into Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Senegal? -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep. The two categories represent the same thing. "Cultural heritage monuments" is probably a better name. Thank you. ----Benoît (d) 06:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose. Cultural heritage monuments in Senegal is broader than Monuments historiques (in other countries: National Monuments). Compare the example Category:Cultural heritage monuments in France with subcategory Category:Monuments historiques in France and Category:World Heritage Sites in France. So Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Senegal empasst all possible classes of protected cultural property. --Atamari (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:History of Bas-Rhin by century

Suggest merger into Category:Bas-Rhin by century. Typically we don't include history of for subcategories and the other departments by century categories aren't 'history of'. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Agree--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:SBB CFF FFS Infrastructure

Infrastructure is one of the operating units of Swiss Federal Railways (SBB CFF FFS) (see ), but I think it makes for an awkward container for the physical infrastructure that SBB owns. Almost everything in this category is either a physical railway line, or is located on that line. I think we could replace this category with Category:Railway lines of SBB CFF FFS (see Category:Railway lines of the Appenzeller Bahnen for an example). Mackensen (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Alsace

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Languedoc in the 1810s.

I wonder if this category should be split. The province (in the Holy Roman Empire from the 12th century until 1630s or so when it became a province of France, split into departments in 1790) is pretty clear. From 1871 until 1918, it was Alsace-Lorraine which was part of the German Empire which again is clear. In 1918, it was again divided back into the same three French departments (thank god) but it's just a 'region' vaguely then. The 1982 administrative region in that sense is completely separate especially in 2015 it was dissolved. The areas aren't exactly the same but it starts to get a bit confusing to keep track of. Right now, you can't find it in any France by year category unless you look under the "present-day Grand Est" category which is a bit absurd in say Category:Present-day Grand Est in the 1150s when it wouldn't be in France for almost 500 years and under a categorization scheme that wouldn't go into effect for over 850 years. It make the temporary administrative region the main point and ignores the fact that it was full province within France. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

the 1982-2015 region was not "vaguely" defined. It had a formal status, and even if the Grand Est region was formalized, its two departments are claiming their unification under the term "Alsace" by jining their council to preserve the name "Alsace" (not three departments, because the Territoire de Belfort that was part of the historic Alsace was integrated into another formal region between 1982-2015 within Franche-Comté, now part of the new region Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, and the part of Alsace that was not annexed to Germany was integrated into the department of Moselle, in the former region of Lorraine; there was a vaguely defined region of "Alsace-Moselle", which remains today in French law for its special status about religion and work laws, coming from the "Concordat" inherited from the German law).

So I don't know how you want to split that category: it clearly indicates the region that had formal status as a legal region of France in 1982-2015 and that is preserved culturally by its two departments (Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin): there's no applicable division except these two departments ! But may be you want another category for a LARGER cultural/historic region, and that would fully INCLUDE "Alsace" (= Bas-Rhin + Haut-Rhin). One such "supercategory" would be "Alsace-Moselle" (for its "Concordat", still effective today), or the historic cultural region (which did NOT fully include Moselle that was remodeled during WW1), but included Belfort... These are complications created by wars: the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, WW1 and WW2, but also some smaller changes at end of the Second French Empire). verdy_p (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As well, Alsace still exists now, no longer as an administrative "region", but as a territorial collectivity, grouping two former local collectivities for departments (departmental councils joined to form a unique "Collectivité européenne d'Alsace", still inside the new region of "Grand Est" that merged 3 former regions and their regional councils). Alsace also has two prefectures for the representation fo the State, in each of its 2 departmental districts (replacing the 2 former departments), but the regional prefecture applies now to the whole region "Grand Est". verdy_p (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Armenian Orthodox churches

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Church buildings of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Ukraine.

Redundant with Category:Armenian Apostolic Orthodox churches? -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Church buildings of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Ukraine

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Armenian Orthodox churches.

Rename Category:Armenian Apostolic Orthodox churches in Ukraine. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The "Armenian Apostolic Church" is not Orthodox, at least not Eastern Orthodox. It is Oriental Orthodox. There are many Armenian "churches" (i.e. denominations or communities). The phrase "Church buildings" is needed to disambiguate buildings from denominations. For example, Category:Armenian Catholic churches in Crimea is Armenian but it is not part of the "Armenian Apostolic Church". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Right, but then Category:Armenian Apostolic churches in Ukraine would be okay? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Not really - it still fudges the distinction between the ethnic (Armenian) and the denominational (Armenian Apostolic Church). Why be ambiguous when you can be precise? Commons can afford to buy a few extra bytes of data from the increased length. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I prefer renaming, to be in line with the rest from this category. Currently Turkey, Romania and Ukraine are exceptions. Either Armenian Apostolic Orthodox churches or Armenian Apostolic churches, both are fine. The phrase "church buildings" is not needed because the main category is called Churches by country, not Church buildings by country. --Orijentolog (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Temples of Uzbekistan

There are 58 churches as subcategories here. Safe to remove them or is there some special meaning in Uzekistan? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"In the Russian language (similar to other Slavic languages), while the general-purpose word for 'church' is tserkov, the term khram (Храм), 'temple', is used to refer to the church building as a temple of God (Khram Bozhy). The words church and temple, in this case, are interchangeable." EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Christian monasteries in Israel

Son of Category:Christian buildings in Israel, where it stays side to side with Category:Monasteries in Israel. AFAIK monasteries are "Christian buildings" (sic). This cat must be blown up and its contents (I see only "Christian monasteries" in there) put into Category:Monasteries in Israel. E4024 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Present-day Midi-Pyrénées in the 3rd century BC

• Category:Present-day Midi-Pyrénées in the 1st century BC

Also including the 1st century BC category but it is very odd to organize France this far by a former region categorization used only from 1982 until 2015. We could use just France, the Roman category name, the six provinces that were used from the middle ages onward, the department used from 1790 until 1982, or even the current Occitanie region (I'd support just France at this point), it makes no sense for anyone looking at these images to even remotely think about Midi-Pyrenees which wasn't even discussed for over 2000 years. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @Birdie and Themightyquill: from this discussion. Yes, you have to go this far back and search within current regions, former regions, and departments to find these scattered categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good evening Ricky. Well, this looks rather curious for sure. It was created in 2014, so Midi-Pyrénées was the region at the time. I think that when Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon were put together, in 2016, these categories should have been renamed by a robot (the creator maybe doesn't know how to make a request?). Now, the French regions are huge considering Europe. I know Nouvelle-Aquitaine is bigger than the whole Austria so using regions from nowadays wouldn't be so weird. But categorizing by department like Haute-Garonne seems too precise, you couldn't fill reasonably every department for every century with enough images. Honestly, I don't see really the interest of these "in the xx century" categories. A house, a church, a castle, a painting may have been built during a certain century, I'm not sure it gives so many informations so many informations about the life then and there. --Birdie (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Well, I can imagine if you want to know the history of your current region, this would be the way to do it. I can accept that it looks silly here, but I can also understand why it has been done. I don't have a good solution. But in this particular case, using a region which no longer exists seems like a bad idea. We can categorize everything according to every regional border in history, or we'd end up with Category:Roman Empire in the 20th century. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I still think it's better to use the naming convention/categorization at that time but this far back, no one cares beyond "France". The problem is these categories doesn't connect to France because it's looking for "Present-day France" in that time period which starts to get ridiculous even if it is technically accurate. It's much easier to find Roman maps using Roman descriptions of France than any document that tells you what it corresponds to today. The problem you get is something like this when there is a change in organization. - Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good evening y'all. If I want to know the history of a department, of a région, I can look at cat:XX century works in YY. We are on Commons, you won't find the history of YY here, just pictures showing things made in YY during the XX century. I'm not sure seeing a photo of the Sitting Scribe in the Louvre will tell me so much about life in Ancient Egypt. I should look at wp instead. Ricky's idea about using Roman territories seems a bad idea to me. Firstly, their limits were changing too. Secondly, who really knows the Roman organisation of Gaul or Germany I, II and III? Third, what about non Roman territories? Nobody can really know the borders between German barbaric tribes or between Slavic tribes. I think a robot should take care of the ancient régions' categories and change the names with the ones of today. Just the names, not with the present day precision. Things will be clearer then. Then, we could have a second look about the categories and decide what to do next.

@Themightyquill: Roman Empire in the 20th century seems weird for sure. But to me, Belgium in the 1800s or in the 1820s looks very weird also. These are two different kind of anachronisms, one putting past countries in the present (which is by far the worst) and one putting present countries in the past (which is not as bad but not really satisfacting). Anyway, the case of France seems not as complicated as some others like Poland with the country expanding to Ukraine and Lithuania then shrinking until vanishing, being reborn 130 years later then 25 years later being pushed to the west to be relocated on territories lost since the High Middle Age. --Birdie (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Themightyquill and Birdie: You are right on the Roman description. I strike that. Looking at the one image here for the 3rd century BC, if I came about looking at Category:Celtic torcs. Perhaps rename the department and the region and also have it within Toulouse on its own (as a city of France). I could live with the department and the current region (both seem in use) if people want but without all the "Present-day" nonsense in the title since we don't use that for countries. I can't tell if it's in Toulouse because of the museum or because it was from there but that's another argument. :-) -- Ricky81682 (talk)

@Ricky81682: Interesting exemple Rickie. Generally, the museums out of Paris have also local collections. The Musée Saint-Raymond is located in Toulouse, one of the biggest cities in France. So the torques exposed there can come not only from an area around Toulouse but from a rather wider one. Wider than Toulouse for sure as Toulouse id the head of the region and not only of the department. So the category 3rd-century BC in Haute-Garonne seems absolutely not justified except if the origins of the torques can be given. Imagine a picture of Mona Lisa with the category 16th-century in Paris and see how stupid it looks. Birdie (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Substance dependence in Turkey

It only has Category:Smoking in Turkey and has been placed under "Category:Mental and behavioural diseases and disorders in Turkey" (added only today). So as a smoker, shall I be placed under "Category:People with mental and behavioural diseases and disorders in Turkey"?! I protest this nonsense, not to say BS. Please keep smokers out of this BS, Category:Smoking is only under Category:Leisure activities... E4024 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Logically if only you are a smoker you do not have a mental illness or disorder, but if (most likely) an addiction. Addictions to substances (such as tobacco, alcohol and other drugs) are considered by the WHO a health disorder. I am a family doctor and I have seen too many people die and suffer from the consequences of smoking.

I have no problem putting smoking in a leisure activities. Then I just added Category:Leisure activities in Turkey to the Category:Smoking in Turkey. Everyone is free to consume their lives as they wish.

--Jmarchn (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:People by posture by country

All the country cats in here should use "People ... in" and not "of". "People sitting" in some country are "people in" that country, independently from being people of or not of that country. E4024 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Orientalism in Western music

Either this cat should bear "western" or the mother cat "Western". Native speakers? E4024 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Also consider Category:Orientalism in western literature within this framework. --E4024 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:DB Class E 03

Questionable recent and undiscussed rename from category:DBAG Class 103 Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: it is very specific topic. Can you clarify the situation. Enwiki has only en:DB Class 103--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The articles for en and de Wikipedias are both 103, not E 03. "E 03" should perhaps exist as a subcategory of "103".

I have no opinion of "DB" vs. "DBAG" vs. "DB Class" (although "class" for all our loco namings should be used as it is not a proper name). That would be an issue for someone more familiar with German practice than I am.

As is stated, this was a class of 4 + 145 locos. The first 4 prototypes in 1965 were "E 03", by the time the production locos appeared from 1970, the DB numbering scheme had them as "103" instead. The original 4 were renumbered, the new builds were all 103 from the outset. They operated and were known as 103 all through their working life.

We have a few images of E 03 001, the first prototype, which has been preserved and restored to its original livery and number. I would support that being in its own category. If we locate images from the 1960s, we might even be able to populate "DB class E 03". But the overall parent should revert to class 103. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Toblerone (chocolate bar) in Hong Kong

Don't see a need to actually separate this kind of stuff into specific locations. Minorax^talk 15:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

tend to  Agree. This is only country category under Category:Toblerone (chocolate bar)--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Collections of the Museum für Asiatische Kunst

I have nothing against having museum names in their original languages, like here in German, but using half-German and half-English at some parts of the cat tree and all subcats in English, as in the case of Category:Collection of South, Southeast and Central Asian Art (Museum of Asian Art) is quite confusing. Also the relationship between this museum and the Ethnographical Museum in Berlin seems to have been intermingled in the cat tree. Maybe it's my confusion, but even if that is the case, it means the categorization tree is not so clear. E4024 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

enwiki main article is under en:Museum of Asian Art. So we should use this English name in all related categories Estopedist1 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked what the relevant Humboldt Forum page has on offer. I asked for the English version, and got: "Exhibition / Ethnologisches Museum and Museum für Asiatische Kunst / New Presentation of the Collections

multifaceted spacious surprising" . So the museum itself seems to stick to the German name, mixing it with English other texts. The SMB site speaks of "Museum für Asiatische Kunst (Asian Art Museum)", translating the Museum für Asiatische Kunst slightly different to Museum of Asian Art. As the collections have moved I think it makes more sense to reorganize the categories as a whole, than haggle about this name. The discussion is now almost 1,5 years old, and seems to be uninteresting to all but E4024, who is no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.Dosseman (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

some facts:

1. Museum für Asiatische Kunst and Ethnologisches Museum are technically two different museums, even though they might be located in the same compounds.
2. https://www.smb.museum/en/museums-institutions/museum-fuer-asiatische-kunst/about-us/profile/ calls itself Asian Art Museum.
3. https://www.smb.museum/en/museums-institutions/ethnologisches-museum/about-us/profile/ calls itself Ethnological Museum.
4. but the two museums' collections are exhibited together as a permanent exhibition called Ethnological Collections and Asian Art at Humboldt Forum: https://www.smb.museum/en/museums-institutions/museum-fuer-asiatische-kunst/exhibitions/detail/ethnological-collections-and-asian-art/ "Ethnological Collections and Asian Art... On the two upper floors of the Humboldt Forum’s West Wing, exhibits from the world-renowned collections of the Ethnologisches Museum (Ethnological Museum) and the Museum für Asiatische Kunst (Asian Art Museum) of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (National Museums in Berlin) showcase the world’s civilizations..."

my opinions:

1. english name of Museum für Asiatische Kunst should best be resolved with a consultation of the museum itself. using the german name or any english translation is ok for a temporary basis. if the museum uses the german name also for english texts, then follow.
2. use Ethnological Museum for Ethnologisches Museum.
3. if the artworks are part of the Category:Ethnological Collections and Asian Art, then put it in that. that cat would be a subcat of both the ethno museum and the asian art museum.
4. if the artworks are categorised by collection, they should go to either category of "collections of xx museum".

RZuo (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Nude or partially nude women wearing red shoes

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Barefoot female, sole exposed.

This just seems like a random intersection for a category. I note that it is the only subcat designating the color of the footwear rather than the type. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The important thing is to give more visibility to nudity, shoes etc are only excuses to do that. :) E4024 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I think the category is flawed on its face, but it may also be worth noting that the user who created it caused an enormous mess on EN.WP by creating literally tens of thousands of redirects, a large number of which basically amounted to "I like boobies" so this totally fits their pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Mixed feelings on this. Do we really want a bunch of pictures of nudes to end up directly in Category:Red shoes so that someone looking at that innocently named category encounters a number of nude pictures? Because it seems to me that would be the effect of getting rid of this category. - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason the images have to have the red shoes category on them. They are obviously not the main subject of these images. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox It seems to be common practice to categorise even incidental items shown in images. If this is to be changed, there should be a wider discussion. Brianjd (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox it is the only subcat designating the color of the footwear rather than the type So? Just create some intermediate categories like People wearing red shoes and Women wearing red shoes, like we have elsewhere in the category tree. Brianjd (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me three times, it really reminded me how broken Commons is to see that this discussion is still open 15 months later. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I agree that the CfD process is broken; I still have a CfD of my own open from more than 2 years ago. Do you have any response to the issues I raised here? Brianjd (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not looking to have a broader discussion about category types, this category was created by a person who created tons of problematic content across multiple projects and I think we could just be rid of it with no harm done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox I think we could also just keep it with no harm done. At enwiki, serious concerns were raised about indiscriminate deletion of this user’s edits, some of which were actually useful. This category should not be deleted unless a specific reason is given. Brianjd (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

please stop pinging me, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Then someone really needs to close this CfD now. Brianjd (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I am not aware of evidence that this user was a problem on Commons. Their talk page contains notifications of many CfDs, some of which were quickly closed with no action, and some of which discuss more subtle issues. Brianjd (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, we only have 37 more days to plan whatever kind of party we want to have to celebrate the third birthday of this still-open discussion. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rotundas

en:Rotunda (architecture) says a rotunda "is any building with a circular ground plan, and sometimes covered by a dome. It may also refer to a round room within a building." How exactly is this category different from Category:Round buildings? Rename to Category:Things named Rotunda or some equivalent? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note that w:Rotundas redirect to w:Rotunda (architecture) though w:Rotunda does list a roundabout and possibly others called "Rotundas". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Xia Dynasty ceramics

Request for deletion: There have never been archeological findings of the Xia dynasty, including ceramics. Category is redundant to "Ceramics of Erlitou culture", which is also the only child category here. Enyavar (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Enyavar: specific topic. If no one opposes, solution per nomination Estopedist1 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

i support deletion. RZuo (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I just checked the images sorted into the category, I previously supposed they were double-catted as "Erlitou ceramics" as well, given how the images in that categorie are also named "xia pottery" which is false. So the images in here may need different categories instead, based on where these ceramics were found. But "Xia dynasty pottery" is a propaganda story; the PR China classifies artifacts of a certain age as Xia-made, including those of Erlitou and Erligang cultures. So we can't particularly trust partisan information from state museums. --Enyavar (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternate idea, I just see there is also stuff like Category:Art of the Xia Dynasty. So instead of deleting the categories, we could include a disclaimer that pictures of the objects in question are classified as Xia-dynasty artifacts based on Chinese party-propaganda. --Enyavar (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

everything can be dumped into Category:Stone Age in China, etc. we should avoid the term "xia dynasty" as much as possible. RZuo (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant Category:Bronze Age in China. Enyavar (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:NoFoP templates

Rather than splitting the templates into FoP ones and NoFoP ones by country, I think we should have it organized as Freedom of Paranoma by country (full name) and load in the templates and/or discussions or whatever. We also can describe it at the category page to help users learn it. I'll also start redirects for FoP to NoFoP and reverse as I think it would be helpful for others to tag pages if both exist rather than memorizing which one is the right one by each country. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: However, there are cases where NoFoP templates created for warning purposes are misused for disclaimer purposes, and I think it is a good idea to divide them accordingly. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: Knowing that they are being misused, isn't it better then to not divide them? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I think that they are misused because the category is the same, so I think it's better to divide them. Ox1997cow (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 160

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM.

Every modern digital camera embeds its official name into the exif data for each image. There have been other discussions where some contributors think we should conflate apparently similar camera, or apparently identical cameras, into one category. In every discussion over the wisdom of this approach I have made several arguments against this approach.

1. The official name embedded in the exif data is both unambiguous, and machine readable. It would be relatively easy, require no human judgement, to delegate to a robot to classify images by camera.
2. Even contributors who don't know the details of camera manufacturer's product lines can easily rely on the official name embedded in the exif data.
3. Cameras which appear identical, even if taken apart and compared on a chip by chip level, by looking at their individual components, will differ in their firmware. It would be the camera's firmware that embeds the official name in the image's exif data. And the firmware might differ in other significant ways.

   Here is a thought experiment. A manufacturer introduces a camera, at a mid-range price, with certain features. Months later a competing manufacturer introduces a similar camera, at a similar price, with every feature their camera has, while adding some cool new features. So, the first manufacturer reverse engineers those new features. They determine that, with new firmware, they can manufacture a camera with the new features first developed by their competitor. Maybe it needs faster memory. So, they decide to sell that new camera, with the new features, using the same chassis as the earlier camera, with new firmware. The new official name the firmware adds to the exif may be the only visible sign the two cameras are in fact different, but the newly introduced features are why they should be treated as new cameras.

This category currently has a hatnote that says "Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 160 and its variants Canon IXY 150 and Canon PowerShot ELPH 160.". It could instead say "The Canon Digital IXUS 160 is very similar to Canon IXY 150 and Canon PowerShot ELPH 160, see Category:Taken with Canon IXY 150 and Category:Taken with Canon PowerShot ELPH 160."

Those two categories could have reciprocal hatnotes. Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Today I came across an image that moved into Category:Taken with Canon Digital IXUS 160 by User:Artix Kreiger 2, even though the EXIF data said it was taken by a different model of camera.

  I was going to start a discussion, but see now I started one two years ago.

  Artix, you did not come here to explain why you made this move. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Bronzes by year

Isn't Category:Bronzes by year redundant with Category:Bronze sculptures by year? I see that Category:Bronze sculptures by year by country redirects to Category:Bronzes by year by country. All the "(year) bronzes" categories (e.g. Category:1923 bronzes) are in Category:Bronze sculptures by year, so I assume they refer to bronze sculptures. Themightyquill (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Bronzes is a generic cat for different objects. We have not only sculptures, we have also weapons, helmets, belts, mirrors, coins, pots, furniture decorations, tools, surgical instruments, etc. Maybe this category seems redundant, but it isn't. The problem lies elsewhere: all objects in bronze, especially the ancient Greek, Roman and Etruscan ones, need a complete and systematic categorization. --DenghiùComm (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems. We also have Category:Bronzes by decade and Category:Bronzes by year by country--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: Category:Bronzes by year has parent categories Category:Art by year and Category:Art made from bronze. If it isn't just for art, perhaps we might rename to Category:Bronze objects by year and find better parent categories (Category:Objects by date?) -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Tantric

(1) Why do we have a category named by an adjective? (2) Why do we have a large number of highly sexual images in a category that refers to a broad range of esoteric practices? Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zusasa: This was previously a redirect, which is what I think it should be. - Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see that User:NeverDoING, rather than discuss, moved the category page to Category:Tantric sex (not, by the way, where it redirected before, it redirected to Category:Tantric (band), and left a large number of subcats more or less orphaned, since they now have a redirect at Category:Tantric as their parent. Can we try to get some consensus rather than wheel wars? (Also looking at Category:Tantric sex I see quite a few very graphic visual images that have nothing obvious to do with tantra.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, purely as a category matter, this is very disorganised. There is, first of all, no organic connection between medieval Tantra and Neotantra; the two have entirely different objectives, contexts, participants, and methods. They should therefore not be categorised together; and unintelligible or ambiguous categories like "Tantric" and "Tantric sex" are simply malformed and should be deleted. The category "Tantric" is currently an inappropriate redirect to "Tantric sex". The category "Tantric sex" currently contains

a) the category "Lingam" (the sacred male part) - this is nearly all Hindu (Shaivite); there could possibly be a connection to Tantric Hinduism and Tantric Buddhism but this is not evident in the Shivalingam images in the category, so its inclusion is at best dubious.

b) the category "People touching body parts" - this may be part of "Neotantra" but is not part of "Tantra".

c) the category "Yoni"(the sacred female part) - this is again nearly all Hindu, and many of the images could equally be categorised as "Lingam" (the stonework has a central lingam surrounded by a channel representing the yoni), so the distinction between the categories is poor or unmaintainable; there are a few modern graphics, perhaps Neotantra, increasing the sense of confusion in this subcategory. The sub-subcategory "Yoni in Indonesia" similarly contains Sivalingams, i.e. Lingam+Yoni as before.

d) images of several kinds:

1) photographs of Neotantra massage and sexual stimulation.

2) diagrams of the subtle body.

3) medieval Tantra documents and paintings.

4) photographs of temple statues in Maithuna and other aspects.

There should be a clear separation of medieval Tantra from Neotantra throughout the category system. Ambiguous categories should be deleted. Categories that cannot be distinguished should be merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: sounds like you know the terrain. Would you be interested in sorting this all out appropriately? If so, and if no one objects in 72 hours after you say so, I'd be happy to close this and leave it to you to sort it out. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll do my best (parts of it may be tricky). That will involve recategorisations, new categories, and a few category redirects. Eventually there might be some categories to be deleted; I think this category "Tantric" should simply be deleted immediately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: please hold off a little in case User:Zusasa or User:NeverDoING want to respond, but if they haven't weighed in by Monday and I haven't closed this, please feel free to ping me so I can mark this as closed. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll not do anything. I suggest however that Category:Tantric sex become a Category Redirect to Category:Mithuna (aka Maithuna). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole discussion. But I guess the best is to follow enwiki, where en:Tantric is a DAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Gascogne

This is the French spelling I think. The English spelling (and the version used at English) is Gascony. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: are there similar cases about the naming of French territories? I just give here link to category:Gascony--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: I can't really think of any but I'm considering whether there are categories in languages with very different scripts (Hindi/Mandarin, whatever). It doesn't matter to me, but in retrospect, looking at Category:Departments of France it seems like the French spelling is done enough that I should withdraw this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Coastal Ostrobothnia

The official English name of the region is Ostrobothnia, the previous name move done by user:Pennants, who was banned for sockpuppeting on the FI Wikipedia, should be reverted. Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact some of the other categories for the Finnish regions should probably be re-named as well. The Prime Minister's Office has issued official English translations as seen here (pages 8-9). --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As Ostrobothinia was renamed to Coastal Ostrobothnia without any discussion, I think it is a no-brainer to revert it. And it might be a good idea to also rename other region categories based on the document provided by the Prime Minister's Office. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 12:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Apalsola@Fenn-O-maniC: very likely to rename was done by user:Pennants because we have also:

• Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Northern Ostrobothnia
• Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Southern Ostrobothnia
• Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Central Ostrobothnia

How Finnish people differentiate this Ostrobothnia (Coastal Ostrobothnia?) from other Ostrobothnias? Estopedist1 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: The Finnish names for the regions are as follows:

• Ostrobothnia = Pohjanmaa
• Central Ostrobothnia = Keski-Pohjanmaa
• Northern Ostrobothnia = Pohjois-Pohjanmaa
• Southern Ostrobothnia = Etelä-Pohjanmaa.

Apalsola ^{t • c} 23:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The official naming convention follows similar pattern in Swedish as well, Ostrobothnia having plurality of Swedish speakers:

• Ostrobothnia = Österbotten
• Central Ostrobothnia = Mellersta Österbotten
• Northern Ostrobothnia = Norra Österbotten
• Southern Ostrobothnia = Södra Österbotten.

--Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pasay

To pave the way for move of Category:Pasay City into this category title (following enwiki title convention), this category needs to be deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I don't mind either way, but you probably should discuss this / link to this CfD at Category:Pasay City. Thanks. 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be a few other places called "Pasay" though they are probably much less important. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: both entries 1 and 2 in the GeoNames list refers to w:Pasay itself. Most of the other entries are partial title matches or are related to Pasay itself. The only two other "Pasay" places are barangays Pasay of w:Del Gallego (5 and 7) and Pasay of w:Maasin, Southern Leyte (number 13). For those, these may be titled under Category:Pasay, Del Gallego and Category:Pasay, Maasin, Southern Leyte, but the main topic of "Pasay" is this highly-urbanized city in Metro Manila with more than 400,000 inhabitants (highly-urbanized is the highest of all types of Philippine cities, and are politically and administratively independent of the provinces). Switzerland's La Pasay (no. 48) and Pasay River (no. 34) are partial title matches. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes and are for different ones though the places seem to be small and don't show up on the map. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  enwiki article is under en:Pasay. So, seems to be keep Estopedist1 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeug 181

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeuge (Sd.Kfz.).

	Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeug 181	Merge into	Category:Tiger I
	Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeug 182	Merge into	Category:Tiger II
	SdKfz 181 is just another name/designation for Tiger I vehicle, and it is much more readily identified by the 'Tiger I' moniker. Same reasoning for SdKfz 182 / Tiger II.
	Josh (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• These should be redirects (and in Category:Sonderkraftfahrzeuge (Sd.Kfz.)), not supercats. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: redirects for Tiger I and II respectively? Abzeronow (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:People's Park Station (Zhengzhou)

Explaining the situation: several categories related to "People's Park Station" and "People's Square Station" were using inconsistent names: some in English, some in Chinese (with different word divisions: Renminguangchang and Renmin Gongyuan), and some had a mixed-language title ("Renmin Square Station"). I've renamed them all to their English equivalents and fixed/created disambiguation categories for them. However, user Windmemories wants to keep the Chinese title in the category under discussion. As I told him, I don't mind using the Chinese names as long as it's applied consistently to all similar categories. —capmo (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Capmo: It is not the matter of using English or Pinyin. I think the category name of the station should better be in consistent with its official English translation. The case is, different places have different official translations. For example, the official translation is People's Park Station in Chengdu, but it is Renmin Gongyuan Station in Zhengzhou. --Windmemories (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Windmemories, thank you for the explanation. What do you mean by "official English translation"? Is there a list of translations issued by the Chinese government that covers these stations names? If by official you mean just the alternative names used by the Metro administration of each city, then I guess they are not meant to be considered 'official' in the ordinary sense of the word. Anyways, Commons has autonomy to use the names most appropriate for the project, if so decided. I hope others jump in the discussion so that we can reach a reasonable consensus :) —capmo (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Capmo: Thanks for your reply. I remember I've seen an official documents stating the standard English translation approved by the government for each station in Zhengzhou, but I cannot find it right now. I'll post the link later if I find it. --Windmemories (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Capmo: The official file is internal and cannot be found on any official websites. However there's a related topic on a forum about metros in China, and some pages of the file are posted. The address of the topic is http://www.ditiezu.com/thread-639583-1-1.html. From the post, the translation for this station is Renmin Gongyuan, as is shown on signs inside or outside the station. (You can see that on images of the station from Commons) So I still think it is more appropriate to categorize as "Renmin Gongyuan Station" --Windmemories (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately they require a registration in order to be able to see attachments. Anyway, considering that it's a Chinese forum, I'd expect to see some kind of Chinese transliteration instead of a literal English translation, as we did here on Commons. The English translation can be understood by the whole world, not just by the Chinese, which is a good point in favor of using it. —capmo (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)