Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04

Category:Books about military history by year

Subdividing by language is okay; but the major subdivision should be by book topic; I think subcategories of the military history "by publication year" should be abolished.

It makes a lot of sense to connect publication dates and publication location (as in Category:1920 books from London), but I see no benefit in combining the publication year and the topic in a category name.

In 1920, authors could choose to write about the military history of WW1, about the Siege of Metz and about the military equipment of Roman soldiers. These topics have nothing in Common, books about history can be written a thousand years after the events or just two years later.

Please also see Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Books about World War I Enyavar (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support. The precise subject of a book is far more important than the year it was published. In fact, I'd argue that subcategorizing by year should always be treated as a last resort - not just for books, but in general. Omphalographer (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment@ What would we do with the books in these categories? Move them up to the decade categories or century categories? The same argument applies to "<decade> books about military history" and "<century> books about military history". Should we handle those the same? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Costume deletion requests in Japan/deleted and kept

Not necessary. Deletion requests with mixed closures can be categorized in both Category:Costume-related deletion requests in Japan/deleted and Category:Costume-related deletion requests in Japan/kept. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Make America Great Again hats

I suggest moving all the categories from "Make America Great Again caps" to "Make America Great Again hats" Trade (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: In that case, the CFD should be on the "caps" categories, not the "hats" category. Maybe you can list here the ones you want changed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
People wearing Make America Great Again caps (220 F)
Black Make America Great Again caps (5 F)
Pink Make America Great Again caps (4 F)
Red Make America Great Again caps (212 F)
White Make America Great Again caps (13 F)

--Trade (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:People looking left

please rename to something that is clear and unambiguous: Category:People looking to viewer's left or Category:People looking to their right (same for Category:People looking right) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I think all our "right" and "left" categories are from viewers' viewpoint. A hatnote rather than renaming is another option for clarification. I have no strong opinion as to if a hatnote rather than renaming is better option. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    If we implement hatnotes, it would be helpful to have them on all the related pages. You never know which ones people will or won't look at when categorizing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with Infrogmation. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    If you're both unsure about what is better: my take on it is that renaming the category to something unambiguous is better because that makes it clear already from the category title. This means
    • people can find more quickly what they look for,
    • fewer miscategorized items because people thought it was meant the other way around, and
    • less need to look up the category every time to find out which way it was again when one forgets about it (I rarely add this category so I always forget which way it was so need to look up first)
    and probably some further advantages of having the title already be unambiguous. It doesn't make the category title overly long and I see no downside to just moving the category. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Commons files

thought about moving this category or discussing moving this category to Category:Commons file help since it's for meta / help pages, not the Commons files – however now wondering how this cat differs from Category:Commons help, there's many meta pages about files there too so maybe this should be upmerged or moved to another more specific title. What do you think? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:World maps of countries by gender

This category is not supposed to be an "X by Y" category (like Category:Buildings by country), despite its name. So, it should be moved to an appropriate name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:World maps of countries according to grammatical gender perhaps? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Creator, here. No problem with change as far as it's not deleted. The "by" may have been the inertia from wiktionary. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 18:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stamps

The vast majority of these files are postage stamps - at present a very small subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that myself. This should be a DAB containing Category:Adhesive stamps and Category:Ink stamps per the selectivity policy that "there should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." Other projects seem to do it the same way. "Stamp" as a synonym of "postage stamp" is really only used by or relevant to a small minority of people who collect postage stamps to begin with. Plus as things currently are, a good percentage of the "stamp" categories should probably be up-merged or outright deleted anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
There's a bit of related confusion in Category:Stamping machines, which has conflated the "stamping machines" which apply pressure to metal and the "stamping machines" which apply postage stamps to mail. I'd be in favor of a DAB at Category:Stamps (which should include Category:Stamps (metalworking)). The hard part will be dealing with subcategories - there's a ton of parallel category systems like Category:Stamps by year vs. Category:Postage stamps by year (related CFD) which need to be cleaned up and merged if appropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
There's also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Philately where it was decided that we would "allow for postage stamps of X categories." Although admittedly it didn't get much turnout but I don't think that means it shouldn't be factored into this. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Spherical panoramas

Appears identical to Category:360° panoramic photographs. Either a distinction should be clearly articulated or they should be merged. Sdkb talk 04:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The distinction is that spherical panoramics include the zenith and nadir, so they are a full sphere. 360° panoramas are a superset of that, which may be just a "band" around the equator (i.e. "looking around") 360°. The description of "spherical panoramas" already states that these are panoramas that include the zenith and nadir. Domob (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Some recategorization and modification of {{Pano360}} is due if that is the case. Sdkb talk 02:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Racing Bulls Team

Merge into Category:Racing Bulls. In turn there are two Racing Bulls team after I moved RB Formula One Team category. John123521 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Portrait photographs of the Beach Boys

Unneeded clone of "Group photographs of the Beach Boys" – should be nominated for deletion Carlinal (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  • I disagree. There are other pairs of group/portrait photographs of musical groups. The difference is that the purpose of portrait photographs is just to show the people, and they're usually posed. There are other group photographs that show them performing or in more casual situations. I just moved the ones I think are portraits into this category. If this CFD passes, they can easily be moved back again. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Topics by size

This category tree (e.g. Category:Topics by size → Category:3 topics → Category:3 objects) seems entirely redundant to Category:Objects by quantity. Omphalographer (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:3 (number) → Category:Groups of 3 → (Category:3 topics) → Category:3 objects
You might be right. Last year, I created this category for some reason and necessity. But unfortunately, I don't remember it.
I agree this category to merge or delete. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we could get rid of Category:Topics by size and its immediate subcategories (for example Category:2 topics). Those immediate subcats each have only one entry: the corresponding objects category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Wine vintages

These categories are in both Category:Works by year and year categories. Could someone please alter the template so they are only in one of those? Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: That's really a template issue rather than a category issue, but I took care of it anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:2006 in Borculo

Template Borculoyear does not exist, there are no simillar pages about Borculo, IMO category classifies for deletion. That's why I moved all the files to Category:Borculo. Mikinisk (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just spotted another cat made by the same user - Category:2006 in Ruurlo. It has the same issues the Borculo cat has. As this one has a lot of files inside, I think we can consider creating template and keeping this category. Mikinisk (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Campgrounds in Canada

Almost all the other countries call them campsites. Rathfelder (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Campgrounds in Brazil

Almost all the other countries call them campsites. Rathfelder (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Conferences by time

 Delete and move them back to Category:Conferences. we dont need an extra layer for these which are conventionally placed directly in the topic category. RoyZuo (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete The proper category name would be "by date" but I don't think the category is necessary regardless since there's only three subcats to begin with. The same goes for a lot of the "events by date" categories BTW. Probably a lot of them could, and should, be up-merged. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete upmerge. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment - does it even make sense to group this topic by time, or date, or whatever you want to call it? There are a lot of topics which fall under the umbrella of "conferences", ranging all the way from diplomatic summits to anime conventions. This feels overly broad; I think it'd be more appropriate to diffuse these all to more subject-specific categories by date. Omphalographer (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I was actually just thinking about that with the main category. It's not really clear what the difference between a conference and convention is. Apparently they both use the same Wikidata item and image. So I think it makes sense to up-merge things having to do with "conferences" as much as possible to avoid any ambiguity or duplication. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Leopardus guttulus in Parc des Félins

Leopardus guttulus or Leopardus tigrinus? Henrydat (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's tigrinus, that zoo only has tigrnius- looks like Wikidieren changed it last year from tigrinus to guttulus, though I don't understand why. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I think only the uploader knows what they are because they are quite similar or who know about the zoo. Thank for your information. But you can move back over redirect instead of waiting for it to be deleted. Henrydat (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I only saw tigrinus/oncilla when I was searching for which cat it was-as they are silimilar looking as you say; though no reliable source says if they are tigrinus or guttulus. I tried, says can't be moved over redirect. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay, found their site, and apparently the zoo has both the species. Also, apparently guttulus was only recognised as a separate species in 2013- based mostly on genomes and geography and not appearance. So this is a bigger mess than I thought(for what it's worth, looking at images of the two oncillas, most faces look like those of tigrinus, though maybe their appearences overlap). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
So we just need to move back to the old name because not sure the reason for the name change. I sent a message but haven't received a reply yet. Maybe you need to wait for this discussion to close before taking action. Henrydat (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, the old old name was tigrinus- and it seemed like it was tigrinus from the description of the files (all of them were uploaded after the year the species were held distinct). Yeah, I'll not take any actions regarding this before this closes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
The original animals in Parc des Félins were imported from Sao Paulo, and were determined to be L. guttulus, which is why I moved the categories. However, since 2020 the parc also holds L. tigrinus of unknown subspecific origin, imported from Montpellier zoo. All images on Commons stem from before this period. Perhaps maintaining both pages might have some merit? Wikidieren (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Great. Maybe I should retract my suggestion. Per [], I think they are Leopardus guttulus. I assume this is important because File:Leopardus tigrinus - Parc des Félins.jpg has been used for Leopardus tigrinus and it is very similar to File:Gato-do-mato-pequeno.jpg. If they are similar in appearance only differ geographically per User:DoctorWhoFan91 then they default to Leopardus tigrinus. Because they are recently recognized as a specie, they default to Leopardus tigrinus. Thank User:DoctorWhoFan91. Henrydat (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Per w:en:Leopardus guttulus They have slight difference appearances, but they are hard to distinguish as because "more genetic variation tends to occur within each species, than between the two species". We definitely need to find/present sources for which species this is. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Probably yeah-I'll remove the deletion tag. It definitely is very confusing- the photos are from after the two oncillas were held to be separate, but are listed as tigrinus by the uploader, but acc to you(Wikidieren), the zoo only had guttulus back then. Where the source for them being from Sao Paulo, I couldn't find one? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I found the source for "It is slightly darker than the oncilla, has a larger rosette pattern, and a slightly shorter tail". We have two reasons. Maybe user:Wikidieren does not disclose the source regarding Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo is in southeastern Brazil where Leopardus guttulus lives so that is acceptable. You or someone else can close the discussion in any way. Henrydat (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, the paper that led to them being considered a separate species said that it might be hard to pick up on the differences due to intra-species differences being more than inter-species: they could be either. If Wikidieren can show the source for them being from Sao Paulo, then sure, it would definietely be guttulus. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we are both wrong. It is not zoo, it is zoological park on en:Parc des Félins or fr:Lumigny Safari Reserve. I tried to abbreviate it. Henrydat (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1879)

Improper use of categories (no images in it) Insomniac187 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You see en:Norfolk_and_Western_J_Class_(1879) and File:Class J 4-4-0 No. 19.jpg should be add to this category. I don't understand why Uer:ak22 doesn't add after create. Henrydat (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Educational institutions

There's a couple of issues with this category system:

1. It's not really clear what the difference is between this and Category:Educational organizations or the many subcats of it.

2. There's a ton of pointless overlap between this and the many categories for schools, colleges, universities, Etc. Etc. All universities are "institutions." So it would be pointless to create something like Category:University institutions or whatever to deal with the overcategorization.

3. "Institution" is badly defined and ambiguous. A high school is part of the educational institution but it is not an "institute" or "institution" itself. Whereas, again, all universities are institutions. So the extra word doesn't add anything in that context that's not already served by categorizing them as educational organizations.

The problems could potentially be resolved by creating a specific category for the "institution of education", which could include subcats for schools and the like, but I'd argue there's already Category:Education for that. The extra word "institution" doesn't actually add anything. Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a meaningful distinction here, but I agree that the wording could use some help. "Institutions" are entities like schools which are directly involved in teaching students. "Organizations" are a broader category of entities which are associated with education, but which exist outside of the formal educational system - like libraries, honors societies, or Wikimedia itself. Omphalographer (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't know. You get into some questionable territory when your organizing things based on if a subject is "associated with" something else or not. At least in the United States libraries have after school programs where they teach children about different topics. Day care centers teach toddlers their numbers and ABCs. I wouldn't call them institutions even though both are "associated with education" or whatever.
Maybe honors societies would be an exception, but they are "associated with" universities. So they are associated with education, even if they don't directly educate people. Look at this way, my local community college has a Starbucks. Obviously Starbucks isn't an "educational institution", but if I were to upload a picture of it and put in the parent category for the college then it magically would be because it's "associated with education." Same goes for the local office of the honors society at the college. We can quibble about semantics all day but it just doesn't work to categorize things based on association. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1 and Omphalographer: I think institutions are often formal organizations associated with one or more buildings or building complexes. On the other hand, organizations may also be associated with certain rooms of buildings rather than whole buildings or building complexes (like bank branches). I used to think that all formal organizations dedicated to providing education are "educational institutions", as they are usually associated with one or more buildings or building complexes (campuses). However, I have also encountered at least one nursery that occupies just a part of the first floor of a building, and we label nurseries (preschools) as "early childhood education institutions".
That's why I now think we should get rid of Category:Institutions but keep Category:Educational institutions, and define the latter as "buildings and organizations dedicated to providing education", as opposed to Category:Educational organizations that may include anything from apples to zippers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
They are both organisations though. Am institution is, by its definition, an organisation. An organisation can contain another organisatio, and this is frequently the case either childcare in New South Wales - primary schools often provide the facilities for an early childhood organisation. There really is no need for a seperate “educational institutions” category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk)< Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1 and Omphalographer: I think there is another CFD on Category:Institutions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/01/Category:Institutions. Pinging JopkeB from there.​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. I am not sure we just can get rid of Category:Institutions, because then:
  1. Category:Educational institutions misses a parent which explains the "institutions" part.
  2. Same for all kind of institutions with "Institution" in the name (or the equivilent in other languages).
  3. Category:Organizations is broad enough and large enough to have a subcategory like this. Otherwise the subcategories of Category:Institutions should be moved somewhere within Category:Organizations, where they might not be findable enough/get lost.
JopkeB (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
There's no need to "explain" the words used in a fixed expression like "educational institution", especially since the words used in other languages are likely to be different. Omphalographer (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: With your third point there's already Category:Institutes. I don't see why that wouldn't be adequate. Otherwise there's just pointless overlap between the two category systems. Most of these "institutions" are actually institutes though. I explained it somewhere else, but an "institute" is a specific type of organization. Whereas, the word "institution" is either a synonym for "organization" or something general of cultural importance like the institution of law, institution of government, Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
But there was a discussion about Category:Institutes as well, without a clear conclusion. So to me that looks like filling one hole with another. Then we first need a clear definition of Institues, before we can merge both. JopkeB (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I feel these are two seperate issues and is muddying the water with this discussion. I don’t think discussing “institutions” as a standalone category is helpful in this specific discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1, JopkeB, and Omphalographer: I wonder what will be the fate of the "Institution:" namespace if we get rid of the corresponding category Category:Institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any reason that would need to change. Namespaces do not need to correspond to categories - we have a Creator: namespace but no corresponding Category:Creators, for example. Omphalographer (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: Oops, I have created Category:Creators as an umbrella of Category:Artists, Category:Inventors, etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I have to agree. The plain English definition of an “Institution” is “an organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose”. That’s exactly the same thing as an educational organisation.
we have already specialised the type of institutions, so it would simple to flatten this. I recently proposed removing “Australian educational institutions” as this Educational organisations exists with one subcategory “Australian educational institutions”.
Its an overly complex scheme with a division that has no meaningful meaning. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Miscellanea (Alba Iulia)

Unhelpful category. Should merge into Category:Alba Iulia Rathfelder (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree these kinds of categories should be deleted and their contents merged into the main category, as they serve no purpose. I've found several with a quick search:
There may be others. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Live animals

Why this category and not Category:Live plants, Category:Live fungi, or even Category:Live organisms? Like countries, organisms are either organisms or dead/extinct organisms. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plant biology

Merge to Category:Botany as synonym. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Agree. Unless there is some distinction between the two which I am unaware of (if so, some explanation hatnote would be helpful), merge into botany and make this cat a redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plant science

Merge to Category:Botany as synonym. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman (all files)

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:GWR 4073 Class 4079 Pendennis Castle (all files) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gojong of the Korean Empire in 1884

Please delete; created by mistake. Didn't realize there was a "Gojong of Joseon in 1884" category. I think the "Gojong of the Korean Empire" and "Gojong of Joseon" categories should be merged btw; no reason to separate like this. seefooddiet (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete for this category, Merge to the two categories of "Korean Empire" and "of Joseon". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pole mounted post boxes at unidentified locations in the United Kingdom

Empty category that is unnecessarily specific, parent category can be used until a need is demonstrated for specificity. Sam Walton (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, and I moved all the images to their specific regions, so only images with unidentified locations can go in the parent category. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Okcheongyo bridge

Delete; overlapping with Category:Okcheongyo seefooddiet (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
 Delete This category is identical to Category:Okcheongyo MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Can you please ensure that all images previously in this category go to Category:Okcheongyo (ndeed, why not set up a redirect rather than a deletion? MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Feral donkeys and mules

Another example of a union category. Can be split into Category:Feral donkeys and Category:Feral mules. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose some images have both, or one that cannot easily be distinguished as either. Should those go into Category:Feral animals and Category:Equus instead? That doesn't seem an improvement. –LPfi (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biosphere reserves of Mexico

This can be deleted as a duplicate of Category:Biosphere Reserves in Mexico. TuukkaH (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

TuukkaH: I agree we have a duplicate here, but wouldn't it be better to keep Biosphere reserves of Mexico? I don't see the need for a capital r. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the capitalisation is also an issue in addition to the issue regarding the preposition:
1. Delete the empty category Biosphere reserves of Mexico.
2. Fix the capitalisation by moving Biosphere Reserves in Mexico to Biosphere reserves in Mexico.
After these two steps, it's consistent with e.g. Biosphere reserves in Canada. TuukkaH (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plaza de España (Miami Beach)

Duplicate category - only prior image moved to Category:Española Way, Miami Beach. Sam Walton (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pictures of tornadoes

One of the rare remaining "image by topic" or "images by subject" categories. Such categories essentially duplicate the main categories as most media for a given topic are images. We can have categories on tornado videos, tornado-related books, tornado animations, etc., by the way. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject and Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Images by topic Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep – Very much needed category. Two different pictures are taken of tornadoes: human photographers and automated systems. Category:Videos of tornadoes is a sub category in Category:Tornadoes. It combines both human-taken videos and automated videos. Mind you, videos of tornadoes are used on numerous articles, and one is even a Featured Video. If anything, one could argue the sub categories of Category:Pictures of tornadoes, could be merged into the parent category. But there is absolutely no reason to delete this category, given Videos of tornadoes is not being challenged. They are very different from each other and need splitting up. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Question — Sbb1413, you stated this is a “duplicate of the main category”. Can you explain how “photos of tornadoes” duplicate “tornadoes”? Another category under “Tornadoes” is Category:Radar images of tornadoes. Under your argument that it is a duplicate of the main topic, can you explain how File:21 April 1967 WSR-57.jpg is essentially a duplicate for File:April 26, 2024, tornado near Lincoln, Nebraska.jpg, or how that April 26 photo is essentially a duplicate for File:Dash cam footage of the 2024 Lincoln tornado.webm? As a weather-based editor, I am struggling to understand your logic on how it is duplicates. I literally uploaded File:Estimates of Minimum Wind Forces Causing Structural Damage.pdf today, which is essentially a book/academic paper on a tornado from 1957. You seem to argue tornado-related books, photos, and videos, all “duplicate the main categories”, but the main “category” is indeed Category:Tornadoes. Some better explanation on why photos duplicate tornadoes, but not videos, books, or radar images would be appreciated. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter: I want to remind users that "pictures" and "photos" are not synonyms. "Photos" are a subtype of "images", and "pictures" is a synonym of "images". Pictures/images of tornadoes can also include radar images, paintings, drawings, or any graphical media that are not videos, books, or documents. That's why we delete "images of" and "pictures of" categories, but not "photographs of", "videos of", "books of", "radar images of", etc. categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate that @Sbb1413: ! Do you have any objections to moving the category to Category:Photographs of tornadoes, which does not exist? I am 99% sure this deletion request was unnecessary and you instead prefer a category renaming, given you support a “Category:Photographs of tornadoes” existing, but not a “Category:Pictures of tornadoes”. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stanton, Derbyshire (civil parish)

Current title is enough to disambiguate from Category:Stanton, South Derbyshire (I created that category to move images incorrectly added here) but "Stanton, Derbyshire Dales" would probably be more useful for disambiguation; should "(civil parish)" stay in the category name? Peter James (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Information technology by year

Most of these categories are empty and there is clearly a big overlap with Category:Computing by year, which is much better populated. Should they be merged? Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge. "Information technology" is a vague, hand-wavey term that can refer to anything from copy machines to cloud computing. Some more specific "by year" categories would be good - I'm surprised that we don't have e.g. a Category:Computer science by year for theoretical topics, for example - but Category:Computing by year is a reasonable merge target for now. Omphalographer (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saswad

One image has 7 versions, there needs to be a discussion of which one(s) to keep DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Musicians by hair color

Arbitrary and unuseful category methodology Trade (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there's something wider going on here. See Category:People by hair color in South Korea - there's a whole forest of cross-cutting categories devoted to whether South Korean people's hair is black or brown, or occasionally other artificial colors. (And note that the subcategories of "Musicians" all drill down specifically to South Korea.)
@Explicit - it looks as though you've been involved significantly with these categories. Can you explain what their purpose is? Omphalographer (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
This is simply a breakdown of Category:People by hair color. My work heavily focuses on South Korea-related topics, so I will naturally prioritize subjects within that scope. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep There's nothing arbitrary about this categorization, the scope is clear. "Unuseful" is an opinion. No policy-based reason for deletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Music groups

Should this category and its subcats be called Music groups or musical groups Trade (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Actors by hair color

Not an useful category Trade (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep No policy-based reason for deletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tilt-shift miniature faking

"Faking" suggests intention of deceit. Change to 'Tilt-shift miniature effect' for neutral toned name. Pitke (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Miniature faking is currently named as linked. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:IPO Models

Please spell Category:IPO models with a small "m" NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment While we're discussing a rename: shouldn't this be "model" (singular)? The model is a singular abstract concept which these images illustrate; the images aren't each a separate model. Omphalographer (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chest hair on sportspeople

There was a CfD last year for a similar category having to with sportspeople with open mouths where it was decided that the category was to granular. I'd say the same thing applies here. People aren't looking for images of sports people with chest hair on here and it's not a defining characteristic of any of these people regardless. Not to mention a lot of these image are actually of neck, shoulder, or arm hair anyway. Not chest hair per se. So I think this should be up-merged either to the parent or the next category up from there. Really, I'd argue the parent category should up-merged to, since all of these images are already in multiple categories for sports people that don't involve meaningless random body parts that have no bearing on anything. Pinging people who were involved in the previous discussion @E4024: , @Beeblebrox: , @ŠJů: , @Estopedist1: , @Lallint: , @Ricky81682: , @Brianjd: , @Jmabel: , @Just Step Sideways: , @Nosferattus: , @Bohème: , @Benzoyl:

Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more about men showing their chest with sports then it has anything specifically to do with chest hair. So if this is kept then that should be the focus. Although I still think either one is worth having but at least a category for something like shirtless boxers or wrestlers kind of makes sense. It's not really about chest hair in those situations though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. In general, I find these very objectifying categories about people objectionable (near-pun not exactly unintentional). - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't have to combine all possible categories into intersection categories. This is not a useful intersection category and most of the photos in it don't even show chest hair on sportspeople (strangely). Nosferattus (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
    Agree. Or the amount of hair visible is exceedingly small, e.g. File:Costacurta 1992.jpg or File:Filippo Tortu (ITA) 2022.jpg. Collecting images which show what chest hair looks like is a perfectly reasonable task for a category; collecting every image where a single hair is visible is not. Omphalographer (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Toyooka-shin Station (tentative)

I suggest moving it to 'Takaokadaruma Station'. I made the category in July 2024. I have tentatively named "Toyooka-shin Station (tentative)" because the station have not name then. the railway organization named 'Takaokadaruma Station' in December 2024. eien20 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:National Day

Wouldnt National Days be a better title? Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fachwerkknaggen in Lower Saxony

The name of this category mixes english and german words in a rather inconvenient way. I don't know the exact english equivalent to the german word "Knagge", and I doubt there is an equivalent, since "Knagge" has many different meanings, see de:Knagge and the discussion. So "Fachwerkknagge" probably refers to one specific meaning of "Knagge" (is there an english word for this specific meaning? I'm not sure but I might remember having ssen similar elements in Chester). Since this architectural element is widely used in renaissance and medieval timber architecture at least in Germany, and many photos exist or could be taken, a category probably makes sense. How should it be named? Imo this should be discussed before many more categories come to exist. 2003:E4:5F16:9900:492E:F517:C79F:D92E 09:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Vbbsmyt

Probably nonsense: no understandable name, no description, no wikidata, has probably nothing to do with Cinema4D, created by IP. Only AGF prevents me from an immediate deletion request. Telford (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete and depopulate. "VBBSMYT" is the online nickname of a user who creates 3D models of various pieces of military equipment (cf. ); the items in this category are presumably intended as a list of things which they have created models of. However, this isn't an appropriate use of Commons categories - category membership is used to represent hierarchical relationships like "is-a" or "is-part-of", not arbitrary ones like "had-a-3d-model-of-it-created-by". Omphalographer (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Eindhoven bevrijd, 18 september 1944

Empty. No use. S. Perquin (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)


  • It is most misleading to say "Empty" or "No use" when it's only empty because you have just emptied it.
We have two other categories: Category:Liberation of Eindhoven and Category:18 Septemberplein (Eindhoven) where there is an overlap. We might reasonably say that these fulfil its role and so it's no use in addition, but that's a different issue. In particular we would need to think about either of them being redirect targets. Overall I think that this should be simply deleted, but the nomination could have been a lot clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose. It was empty because you removed the content out of it, and it had use before your action. This subject what the category is for is a war memorial. We try to have each war memorial have its own category on Commons (when at least one image). Merging categories is pointless and very counterproductive. In Dutch: Het plat slaan van categorieën is op Commons een zeer slecht idee. And even the changing of the categories you did wrong, as you removed it from the war memorial category tree. If this is the quality of your work, don't continue with it please, others have to clean up the mess. Romaine (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of a category with only 1 image in it. Regularly I see such categories being deleted. I further think that there is not really more to photograph than just that tile that was photographed. The only picture that was in the category was very nice, so I don't see why there would ever be more pictures in it. Now if there were several photos in this category, I would never have nominated it for deletion. I just don't see the point of this category... S. Perquin (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I have seen thousands of categories of just one image in it, not getting deleted. There is surely more to be photographed, this object is situated in an environment and this context should also be photographed to have a better understanding where this object is located. This is a very common thing to do, just hasn't happen here yet. Romaine (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, this object exists 10 times (on 10 locations), each of them should be photographed, both in detail and including the environment. Romaine (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
What does the category name mean? I can see the obvious meaning, but is there something more specific implying a particular monument, that I'm unaware of? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
The title of the category is how this monument is called. Eindhoven was liberated during World War II on 18 September 1944, to commemorate this event they created this object to keep it remembrance forever. By adding it in the public environment people get remembered every day about the horrors of the war and that freedom cannot be taken for granted. In the Netherlands every municipality created their own war memorials, from smaller ones to huge objects, and everything in between. A few years ago we have created an overview of all known war memorials in the Dutch Wikipedia. Since then various users went out to photograph these memorials and to add missing memorials to the lists in Wikipedia. Slowly more and more memorials (including smaller ones) get also their own article, but that takes a bit more time. Also this memorial likely gets an article. Romaine (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I might take pictures of the tile at 18 Septemberplein soon, so there will be more than 1 picture in this category! :-) Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Then if this cat title refers to a specific monument, with narrower scope than the other cats, and if that cat is itself a child of a cat for the set of those monuments nationally, then I would certainly  Keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kokborok Scripts

Please move to Category:Kokborok scripts with a small "s" instead of a capital "S". Please review the content of this cateory and move the persons to Category:Tripuri people NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Kokborok script. I'm not entirely sure why the people images are in this rather linguistic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Late Afternoon Glow

Please move to Category:Late afternoon glow with small "a" and small "g" NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support it doesn't appear to be a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Automobile cockpits

A move to Category:Driving stands of automobiles was proposed by ŠJů years ago, with the rationale: "only racing automobiles have cockpits really". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. A "driving stand" is a device which holds up a steering wheel controller in position to play racing video games, e.g. the metal tubing in File:Sparco racing cockpit Pro FIGHTER Model.jpg. It does not refer to the area around the driver's seat in an actual automobile. A more precise term for this might be good, but this isn't it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tunnel construction

A merge with Category:Tunnelling was proposed by Andy Dingley more than a year ago, with the rationale: "COMMONNAME There is no reason for Commons to persist in clumsy invented phrases because it refuses the common and widely used term instead". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Tunnelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Charcoal burning

A move to Category:Charcoal making was proposed by HLHJ, with the rationale: "Clarity of scope. People keep adding this category to pictures of barbeques etc., which belong at Category:Charcoal fires. Not sure where we should redirect this category name". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tall and short people

A move to Category:Tall and short people together was proposed by Gambo7 more than a year ago, with the rationale: "to differentiate from Category:Tall people, which includes tall people only, and is not a superior category". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep — @Gambo7 and Alavense: Category names like "X and Y" should generally mean "X and Y together", except the union categories designated as such. We generally avoid union categories in the form "X and Y" or similar, simply because they are redundant to separate categories on X and Y. So, most categories named "X and Y" means "X and Y together", like Category:Gateway of India and the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Iron Sword War in Israel by city

Most of the subcategories here seem to have images which don't belong to 2023. Would it be okay to harmonize some other way, rather than with the "2023 Israel-Hamas war" formula? The issue was brought up by מקף־עברי in Category:2023 Israel-Hamas war in Ashdod. Looking to further discuss the issue. Alavense (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely.
In fact, there are many such categories because the name of the main category of the war originally included the year in which it broke out and the names of the subcategories were adapted to it.
I saw that in this edit, the year 2023 was removed from the name of the main category, which is currently called "Israel–Hamas war" - I think it is also a good name for the subcategories on the subject.
However, in categories related to Israel, I think it is possible and even better to use the Israeli name "Iron Swords War". In this context, if we are changing names, it is important to note that the word "Swords" is plural - in a way that matches the Hebrew name "מלחמת חרבות ברזל" and not "Sword" in the singular, which was probably also copied into the subcategories by mistake. Chenspec (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@Chenspec nailed it. מקף־עברי (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
By the way, the name "Swords of Iron war" is being widely used by official sources in Israel.
מקף־עברי (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
If so, the official name is definitely better Chenspec (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi Alavense, is there a decision? מקף־עברי (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tank railway wagons of the United States

A move to Category:Tank cars of the United States was proposed by The Bushranger more than a month ago, with the rationale: "ENGVAR. Subcats will also need to be moved". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I have since learned that ENGVAR isn't really a Commons thing. IMHO it should still be changed though, since nobody in the US refers to these as "railway wagons". - The Bushranger (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kokborok Scripts

Please move to Category:Kokborok scripts with a small "s" instead of a capital "S". Please review the content of this cateory and move the persons to Category:Tripuri people NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Kokborok script. I'm not entirely sure why the people images are in this rather linguistic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Women with hand on head

A move to Category:Women with hands on head was proposed more than a year ago, with the rationale: Humans have two hands so the word “hand” should be plural not singular. Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep as is- most images has only one hand on head.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose. I agree that "hands on head" implies that both hands are being used in the gesture, cf. Category:Both hands on head. Omphalographer (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 and Omphalographer: Yes, "hands on head" does imply both hands are used in the gesture. But we have separate categories for "both hands on head" as well as "hands on head". The naming logic works like this:
  • Hands on head — one or two hands
    • Both hands on head — both hands
    • Left/right hand on head — one (left/right) hand
This is like we categorize images of one person under Category:People, or one chair under Category:Chairs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
 Move Change to hands on head- per the info provided by Sbb1413- if that's the general covention on Commons, then I think we should follow that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bonds

A move to Category:Bonds (finance) was proposed by Crouch, Swale months ago, with the rationale: DAB per Wikipedia. Looking to discuss this further. I guess Category:Bonds could be turned into a disambiguation page, given that there are other Bonds categories. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support — Disregarding the Wikipedia dab, the term "bonds" can refer to a lot of things in Commons, including chemical bonds. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fort Bragg

I restored the name because Fort Bragg is official once again after the brief spell in which it was Fort Liberty. However, there is another Fort Bragg (Category:Fort Bragg, California). Should this one be moved to Category:Fort Bragg, North Carolina? It would be nice to have some input from other users. That would help with the reorganization of the categories by year (see Category:Fort Liberty by year), which still needs to be done. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Pingin 烤麵包機, who suggested that Category:Fort Liberty by year be renamed as Category:Fort Bragg (North Carolina) by year. Alavense (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support moving to Category:Fort Bragg, North Carolina. U.S. placenames are always in the form of "[place], [state]", except the metropolises like Category:New York City, Category:Los Angeles, Category:San Francisco, Category:Chicago, Category:Houston, Category:Detroit, Category:New Orleans, Category:Boston, Category:Seattle, etc. (Category:Miami, Florida is an exception of an exception, where a U.S. metropolis follows the usual "[place], [state]" naming). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Fort Bragg, California is a normal city while Category:Fort Bragg (North Carolina) is a military base, of which the categories follow a different naming pattern. 烤麵包機 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Moto Guzzi motorcycle engines

This category duplicates "Category:Moto Guzzi engines". Motacilla (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of mythological giants

All files formerly categorized under "Paintings of mythological giants" are now categorized under "Paintings of giants" and category is no longer necessary.

Both categories existed at the same time and were largely unused. "Paintings of mythological giants" contained files of illustrations depicting giants that were not from any particular mythology beforehand as well, so when it was even utilized at all, it was not utilized just for giants stemming from particular mythologies. I am personally trying to clean up the Giant categories and feel only one painting category is necessary, and thus have moved all files to the more generally named category. Panotti (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Category:Paintings of mythological giants

Category:Bridgnorth

Too many files Medyanowsky (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So what do you think we should do about it? This isn't an unusual number of files for a town category. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Make some subcategories if you are familiar with the town? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Generic decay

This pertains to decreasing price over time of generic pharmaceuticals not geographical (e.g. urban, building, infrastructure) decay like the other sub-categories of Category:decay. It would be helpful to rename this category to indicate that it refers to pricing of generic drugs. Also, price decrease is subjective, so decay (with pejorative connotations) is not a generically (sorry-not sorry for near pun) helpful description. FeralOink (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chinese geese

A move to Category:Domestic swan geese was proposed by Grey Clownfish a few months ago, with the rationale: Current name is not inclusive of African geese. Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support rename to domesticated swan goosegeese- move the two chinese geese categories to "chinese goose" (assuming, of course that they are "chinese goose", as despite its name, african goose originate in China and adjoining areas). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support "domestic swan geese" in plural ("goose" is singular). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support ditto Mariomassone (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Conservation-restoration

This is a muddle; it conflates different types of conservation and restoration, including those of fine art and architecture. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Is there really a need to include her middle name? Trade (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably not, as we already have a couple of categories on individuals where we omit middle names, like Category:Elon Musk (not "Elon Reeve Musk"), Category:Joe Biden (not "Joseph Robinette Biden"), etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:10-5020 (aircraft)

It appears there has never been a US military aircraft with the serial number 10-5020. It seems to have originated as a typo for F-35 11-5020. ZLEA T\C 22:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sleeping and resting Equidae

Yet another union category, possibly because the creator cannot distinguish between resting and sleeping. But resting and sleeping are two different activities, regardless of animal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Creator here: I can distinguish between sleeping and resting equids. The naming follows the contemporary convention of that time 12 years ago, which I think was in place because for many, many other animal groups, sleeping and resting are harder to distinguish. I have no qualms for "sleeping and resting X" to be renamed and re-sorted, but this discussion should be expanded to cover all such categories, to avoid fragmentary overhaul and rehashing the same arguments again in the future. --Pitke (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:AK family

"Kalashnikov rifles" is a far more common name Trade (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be less accurate (not all Kalashnikov's designs were for this family, nor did Kalashnikov have anything to do with the later models), also far less recognisable per COMMONNAME. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
That does not mean they arent derived directly from the original AK Trade (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Blue laws

Is this a suitable title for a category? Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. I don't see any issue with it. Per Wikipedia, it's a common term for Sabbath laws. Omphalographer (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
In the USA, maybe. Rathfelder (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
If you're aware of any more general terms, I'm open to suggestions. (The term I used earlier, "Sabbath laws" is a little bit more specific.) Omphalographer (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Sabbath laws would include, I think, Jewish observance of Saturdays - which is significant, but different. How about Sunday observance laws? Rathfelder (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Prisoneers of War in WWI (Romania)

Should be merged with Category:Prisoners of war from Romania in World War I Alin2808 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Festival du cinéma en plein de Visan

This category should be moved to or merged with Category:Festival de cinéma en plein air de Visan please NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Municipalities in Denmark

The subcategories should be renamed from Kommune to Municipality as thats the correct English translation Trade (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep all — Those are official Danish names of individual municipalities, and we have a tendency to prefer non-English names over English ones in certain cases (for example Category:Côte d'Azur, not Category:French Riviera). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Please no. That would actually complicate things quite a bit, rather than simplify.Hjart (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kambabrún in 1974

empty category Steinninn ♨ 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There were pictures in this category. See the history.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC) I put the pictures again into the category.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
These pictures should be in Category:Kambabrún in the 1970s because 1974 is overly specific. Steinninn ♨ 07:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
There is no other year with images in the 70s. There are many decades without any images. By year is fine. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete Per the Village Pump discussion. At the end of the day this is totally pointless overcategorization as there's already Grensdalur volcanic system in the 1970s which this category just pointlessly duplicates. In general if the "by decade" category only contains two images to begin with then there's no point in creating a "by year" category. Especially in this case since both categories just contain the same two images. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biological life cycles

Upmerge Category:Biological life cycles to Category:Life cycles. Obvious duplicate categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Craftsmen

Downmerge to Category:Artisans. Redundant synonym (see wikt:craftsman). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support downmerge. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:2025-04-17 Stammtisch und Ausstellung Innenstadt in Trümmern

Bitte löschen, Tippfehler im Datum, die richtige Kategorie ist eingerichtet - Wunsch vom Hochlader Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

List of categories ending with "by year"

For many years there has been a problem with images taken in Iceland that they have to many categories. I'm trying to tackle this problem and starting with categories ending with by year. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousends. But I'm starting with 21 to see if there is consensus on my approach. If there is then I'll make a longer list.

The list: Category:Hellnar by year, Category:Snæfellsjökull by year, Category:Snæfellsjökull (volcanic system) by year, Category:Snæfellsnes Volcanic Belt by year, Category:Geitlandsjökull by year, Category:Langjökull by year, Category:Kirkjufell by year, Category:Ljósufjöll (volcanic system) by year, Category:Brennisteinsfjöll (volcanic system) by year, Category:Hengill (central volcano) by year, Category:Þorbjörn by year, Category:Öræfajökull by year, Category:Esjufjöll by year, Category:Eyjafjallajökull by year, Category:Geitlandsjökull by year, Category:Grímsvötn by year, Category:Katla (central volcano) by year, Category:Katla (volcanic system) by year, Category:Subglacial volcanoes in Iceland by year, Category:South Volcanic Zone by year, Category:Selfoss by year

I'm suggesting that these categories be deleted or (when applicable) merged into by decade categories. To be clear, sometimes it does make sense to split categories into years instead of decade. Category:Jökulsárlón by year is an example because it changes a lot every year. But this obsession of categorising every mountain and every glacier into what year they were taken has gotten out of hand. Later I will tackle other problems, like making categories for every volcanic system (examples 1, 2, 3 and 4) Steinninn ♨ 19:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. The amount of "by year" categories is off the chart. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Poor quality AI-generated images

Per the tempalte that implements it (Template:Bad ai), this should be more clearly named - I suggest Category:AI-generated images with obvious artifacts. Current name is just an invitation to subjectively assess quality of images and say "I don't like it, it's poor". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense but so far Template:Bad AI itself has been of that kind so that template in itself be more specific that it's about obvious artifacts if that is the case. I think it has largely been used in reasonable ways unlike not uncommon derogative 'AI slop' denotations for anything made using AI regardless of quality. I think it's intentionally a bit broad and not just about artifacts. Baby Oagen.jpg for example is just entirely indiscernible something and not really artifacts in that sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Manuscript covers

I had selected "Manuscript covers" to be covers of manuscripts (old handwritten books). Is the current use not just "envelopes"? I may be missing a subtlety. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the content here should probably be moved to Category:Manuscript covers (philately) or similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Grass taxonomy

This category and its subcats create this cycle (violating the Hierarchic Principle):

I suggest the following category structure:

For grass taxonomy categories,

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gallery of works by Anton Romako

I do not see the purpose nor the need of this so called gallery cat. Also this name is misleading. All the files should go to Paintings by Anton Romako, there is also a gallery. This cat and {{c|Paintings by Anton Romako are sorted by date, which is not useful, better by artist by title Oursana (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, this category has no meaning to exist. Go ahead if you want to eliminate it. Niketto sr. (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Futuristic vehicle concepts at the DAF Museum

Wrong name for the category I just created. Had to be without "the". S. Perquin (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Futuristic vehicle concepts at DAF Museum

Since there can only be trucks in this category, because DAF only produces trucks, I think this is a better name. S. Perquin (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Who told you that DAF only produced trucks? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
DAF used to produce cars too, but nowadays it's called "DAF Trucks" and they produce trucks. So I don't think there will be car concepts in this category. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
So File:DAF museum, Eindhoven (53925436072).jpg (and the others) don't exist? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
That was not my intention when I created the category. I created it to include scale models of future-like concepts of trucks from DAF, such as File:DAF Trucknasium (2025) (2).jpg en File:DAF-XFC Xtreme Future Concept (2025) (1).jpg. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bos taurus indicus

Merge Category:Bos taurus indicus to Category:Zebu cattle (or vice versa). I believe the separate categories for scientific and trivial names are useful only for distinguishing the taxonomic subcategories from the non-taxonomic ones. But that's not the case here, as we have only non-taxonomic subcategories for zebu cattle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there's a debate on whether taurine and zebu cattle are two subspecies of the same species, or two separate species (I personally believe these are separae species as they are domesticated separately). So, it is better not to use scientific names to treat them as separate species for such cases (for example, Category:Homo heidelbergensis, sometimes considered to be a subspecies of Category:Homo sapiens). So, the category structure would be as follows:
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
There's also Category:Bos domesticus (en:Bali cattle), which is not a descendant of Category:Bos primigenius (unlike taurine and zebu cattle (sub)species). This can also come under Category:Cattle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children by chronological age

I once tried to tie the stages of development (babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, adult people, old people) with chronological ages (0-1, 1-3, 0-18, 13-18, 18-, 60-), turns out it is not a good idea, because the age-based definitions of the stages of development are always inconsistent. Instead, I like to define the stages of development based on certain "bright lines", like birth, first walking, onset of puberty, age of majority, signs of ageing, etc. That's why I propose to delete the "[stage of development] by chronological age" categories (except Category:Teenagers by chronological age, which is an age cohort rather than a stage of development). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:12-5040 (aircraft)

This is a typo for 11-5040. There is no USAF aircraft with serial number 12-5040. ZLEA T\C 12:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1 cattle

Rename to Category:1 cattle beast. "Cattle" is a collective term and should always refer to a group of bovines of the species Bos taurus or Bos indicus. But this category is about single instances of the species Bos taurus or Bos indicus. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. "Cattle beast" is a fairly uncommon piece of jargon and is likely to be confusing. "1 cattle" may be technically incorrect, but it's perfectly understandable. Omphalographer (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Organism development

Upmerge to Category:Developmental biology. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Le Meurice

images non libres de droits, appartiennent à l'hôtel Le Meurice 84.14.183.158 07:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:January in Sydney CBD

should be January in Central Business District, Sydney Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:February 2023 in Sydney CBD

Should be Feburary 2023 in Central Business District, Sydney Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:January 1880 in Sydney

empty - please remove Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Broadway, New South Wales by year

oops, a road not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:History of Broadway, New South Wales

oops, a road, not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1911 in Broadway, New South Wales

oops, a road, not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:July 1911 in Broadway, New South Wales

oops, a road, not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)

Needs discussion as it was emptied out of process without a reasonable explanation. See also which has "unnecessary clarification" as its justification. When is clarification ever unnecessary? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep There are many bodies of the Orthodox Church in America. Some are aligned with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, others with the Patriarchate of Moscow, others with the Patriarchate of Antioch etc. In short, disambiguation is needed. There is a long, convoluted history of the Russian Orthodox Church in America. Some disavowed the Soviet church, others were in communion with it. Either way, it is not reasonable that the average reader could be expected to know such things from a short category title; some parenthetical assistance is necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Уточнение Moscow Patriarchate как минимум не нейтрально - выражает мнение только Константинопольского патриархата, как максимум - оскорбительно, потому что заявляет, что мнения 5 (!) церквей, признающих автокефалию Православной церкви Америки, ничего не значат. Вообще за такое уточнение надо накладывать ограничение в редактировании за разжигание религиозной розни! Ыфь77 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I would invite the above editor to strike his unfounded comments about religious hated. Please stick to the facts: why is no disambiguation better than disambiguation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Почитайте историю, хотя бы про создание англиканской церкви, и поймите, что признание или нет автокефалии (= независимости церкви) - в том числе достаточная причина для казни епископа, а Вы так "вольно" с ней обращаетесь. Поэтому претензия обоснована. По существу: Orthodox Church in America - достаточно однозначное название, принадлежащее только одной организации. Что бы там не думал Константинопольский патриархат, но с любой стороны Православная церковь в Америке независима от Москвы: и с финансовой, и с юридической, и с литургической. Если есть неоднозначность, относящаяся к этой организации, то для её устранение нужно уточнение с названием её самой (например, OCA), а не организации, от которой она отделилась (Moscow Patriarchate) и это отделение признано самим Moscow Patriarchate. Почему-то для Русской православной церкви нет уточнения "Ecumenical Patriarchate", хотя в России полно православных церквей, которые не признают каноничности Русской православной церкви. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
"Fairly unambiguous" is insufficient. Full certainty is better. Not every reader is as knoweldgeable about alleged religious grievances as you. As an Irishman, I need no lectures on the alleged abuses of the Anglican church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
То есть Вы считаете, что проблема неоднозначности названия категории - более важная, чем факт оскорбления 5 международно признанных христианских Церквей? Ыфь77 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Laurel Lodge, ping one of the admins, otherwise I will continue to edit if the issue here is not resolved. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
You may not do that. While the discussion is active, disruptive, out-of-process editing is forbidden. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: If you did what you declare yourself. Ыфь77 (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: После того, как заблокировали, не решив проблему, может решите проблему, не заблокировав? Online translation: After we were blocked without solving the problem, can you solve the problem without blocking? --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Online translation: We both need the opinion of a third person, can you help? --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
A few remarks:
  • Please, don't rework categorization while it is being discussed, unless there is consensus to do so in the discussion.
  • Most category names do not need parenthetical disambiguation in their names; at most they need a hat note.
  • Question: is there some other organization also using the precise name "Orthodox Church in America"? I believe there is not, and if I am correct then there is definitely no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. If there is, then there might be a reason for this, but even that is not an open-and-shut case: for example, we use just Category:George Washington as the name of the category for the first president of the United States, because he is significantly more notable than any other "George Washington". - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
But we also have Category:Washington (disambiguation). I know, because I created it. If anything, it shows the need for parenthetical disambiguation. A reluctance to use parentheses in category names does not make the problem disappear; the need for disambiguation remains. The main result of a reluctance to use parentheses in category names is to put more steps into the navigation journey for the average user who may not even know that there are multiple similarly-named things in existence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Your question ("Question: is there some other organization also using the precise name "Orthodox Church in America"?) is the wrong question to ask. That's because "Orthodox Church" is more like a set than a particular organisation. To the average user, it looks more like "Eastern Orthodoxy in America" than a particular church body. There are many church bodies in America that are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church; it would be wrong to allow one particular body to assume a quasi-ownership of the set name, simply because its own name is fairly similar to the set name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Only my opponent forgot to add 2 theses: none of the territorial formations of the Orthodox Churches in America has the status of an independent Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and 2 deaneries are directly subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate in America. Thus, the clarification (Moscow Patriarchate) is incorrect, offensive, and does not fulfill the main task of resolving ambiguity. Оригинал: Только мой оппонент забыл добавить 2 тезиса: ни одно из территориальных образований православных церквей в Америке не имеет статус самостоятельной Церкви и Московскому патриархату на территории Америке прямо подчиняются Русская православная церковь заграницей (РПЦЗ) и 2 благочиния. Таким образом уточнение (Moscow Patriarchate) - неправильное, оскорбительное и не выполняет основной задачи - разрешение неоднозначности. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: If it is decided to use a clarification, then it is necessary to refer to the Church itself (Orthodox Church in America) or use a common abbreviation (OCA). Ыфь77 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged so add hatnotes:
Not to be confused with Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in the United States.
Not to be confused with Category:Eastern Orthodoxy in North America.
. This is not a reason to add this to the category name, and there can be no good reason to add a disambiguation that effectively takes sides against this Church's autocephalic status. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
There is only one good reason to add a disambiguator to a category name - to assist navigation. That is what I am attempting to do. I am not interested in taking sides. I am not interested in insults - personal or otherwise. I think that @Jmabel: underestimates the complexity of Eastern Orthodoxy in general in North America and the Russsian tradition in particular in North America. A fuller understanding would see that many more categories ought to carry parenthetical disambiguation for their status in North America. The problem is larger than the OCA. Have a look at the Wiki category called Category:Russian Orthodoxy in the United States. Even that does not fully help navigation, but it's a start. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Hat notes are fine. But if you're reading it, then you have realised that you are in the wrong place. So further clcks are necessary. You realise that Commons has just wasted your time. All this could have obviated by the use of disambiguators in the category name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Online translation: As I wrote above, the chosen clarification (Moscow Patriarchate) does not solve the problem of belonging of the Wikimedia category to the Orthodox Church in America and creates a new big problem. Ыфь77 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm open to alternative disambiguators that you have to offer. Alternatives that occur to me include (Formerly Moscow Patriarchate) and (Autocephalic). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: You are not paying attention, I wrote my own options above: (Orthodox Church in America) and, where tautology is possible, (OCA). For the sake of uniformity, do not pay attention to the title of article en-wiki, for example: Diocese of Mexico (Orthodox Church in America) & Buildings of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). Result: the categories have a correct and unambiguous definition and do not look like they relate to the entire continent. To clarify, you can indicate to each category that they belong to one and only one Church. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Online translation: @Jmabel: if we do come to an agreement, is there a mechanism (for example, in the form of a subpage in any project) that can be referenced? Just to summarize, for example: to indicate that a category refers to the organization "Orthodox Church in America" and not to the entire Orthodox Church on the continents of America, almost all categories related to this Church must have one of two clarifications... --Ыфь77 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

We could certainly make an explanatory template for this category and its subcats. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I like this option too, because in order to convey all the nuances of the names, I had to distort both the original Russian and the English translation. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Have you noticed that every church building of the OCA in every state of the USA is called "Russian"? For example Category:Russian Orthodox churches in Alaska. So the dioceses name disambiguator should also reflect this heritage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
How can a diocese have a Russian Orthodox cathedral unless the diocese itself is also Russian Orthodox? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Law by year

These categories are then put into Science by yeat categories. Law is not a science. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove it from the template. Just removed it, so only caches need to refresh. This should solve this. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Can we put them into year by topic? Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done By the way those cats are still missing most of the subcats and files that belong into them so it would be good if you or somebody could add some of the files missing there (files eg about new laws made that year). Prototyperspective (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Roman dodecahedron

Should be plural, "Category:Roman dodecahedra" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be many of them. --Watchduck (quack) 13:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1815 in New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1870 in City of Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:January 1880 in New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1715 maps of Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1717 in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1815 in Australia by state or territory

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Australia by state or territory by year

empty extraneous category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Australia by year by territory

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:December 1823 in Queensland

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1660 documents of the United States

United States did not exist in 1660 Rathfelder (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Words coined in the <decade>

Propose to rename:

All – per arguments outlined at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Neologisms, words and phases introduced in time periods. In short, the split between "phrases coined in" and "words coined in" is not necessary. Some of the subcategories aren't words, but rather phrases. Examples on Commons:

I also propose to remove the red categories (such as Words and phrases introduced in the 1890s) from the affected category pages.

For reference, I found these categories using a search "intitle:/Words coined in the/". —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Corresponds: [[:Category:Words coined by decade]] Allforrous (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
If we are going to keep these at all, I agree with the move. I'm not sure exactly why these categories are germane for Commons' scope, though. Question: given that this is likely to be an area of some controversy, and that Commons is not particularly known for clean practices of citation, what is the level of evidence required to make a particular category a subcat here? Also, the arbitrary emphasis here seems to be on English-language words. Why is it germane when the English-language name of the category was first used in English? E.g. "tofu" appears to have been first used in English in the early 18th century, but is a much, much older Chinese word. What do we do with that? According to en:Sociology, Sociologie is a French neologism with at least one 18th-century attestation that first became widely used when Comte used it in 1838, and I honestly have no idea whether it passed rapidly or slowly into English. Do we date it from 1838, or from the first attestation we can find for the English-language spelling with a "-y"? Jmabel ! talk 02:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
In case that was unclear,  Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete I really don't get the point in these types of categories. At the end of the day categories exist to organize media having to do with the same subject together and I don't see how these categories help people do that. Like to show the category chain here, Category:Words coined in the 1880s --> Category:West Semitic languages --> Category:Canaanite languages --> Category:Moabite language --> Category:Moabite inscriptions --> Category:Mesha Stele. The Mesha Stele obviously isn't a word coined in the 1880s. Neither is the name "Mesha Stele." And I highly doubt anyone who starts at Category:Words coined in the 1880s is looking for images of it. There's obviously going to get to the category through ones that actually have to do with steles. So the whole thing is totally nonsensical. Everything in a category and it's subcats should related to each other in some way. Nothing actually does with these types of categories though. Their just pointless trivia that usually doesn't make sense anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Not being relevant to Commons' scope makes sense to me. I support  Delete as well. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Adamant1: while we reach the same conclusion, there is some bad reasoning there. Category inheritance is not necessarily an is-a relationship. It can be geographic location, authorship, or any of a number of other things. It can certainly not be presumed to be transitive.- Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: I see you continue to add these as we seem to be headed toward a consensus to delete them entirely. I would suggest you either don't waste your time, or come here and try to answer some of the objections that have been raised here, and explain why you believe this is appropriate to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment — At one hand, categories exist to diffuse and organize tons of media. On the other hand, there's an uncertainty on whether to follow the current English name or its etymon while categorizing the categories to neologism categories. @Adamant1 and Jmabel: I think instead of outright deleting these categories, can we repurpose them to categorize text categories, like Category:Covfefe, or even the raw images prominently showing the concerned text? --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @Sbb1413: I'd have no problem if these were limited to categories that are about words, but see no sign that is how they are being used. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
      • That's essentially my opinion about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Optare Solo M950 buses in the United Kingdom

Already exists at Category:Optare Solo buses in the United Kingdom (original, M950). Aethonatic (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Things with 10 things

I propose deleting because this is the only "Things with <number> things" category. The contents could be dispersed as follows:

  • If the item is already in an appropriate category that references the number 10, remove this category
  • If the item is a group of 10 things, upmerge to Category:Groups of 10
  • Upmerge the rest to Category:10 (number)

-- Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I find your main argument very weak — if applied consistently, no categories would exist, for any one category would have been the first of its kind at some point, and no other of the same kind would exist if the first is deleted before any second can be created inspired by the first. What should be done instead is to use the only existing one as a template for more — and that’s how most of our categories were created.
Knowing your consequent and overwhelmingly positive categorization work, I’ll take that statement for a lapsus calami and presume you mean a more nuanced take, which would consider that the solitary existence of this category shows its experimental nature to be unsuccessful, since several years passed after it was created and it failed to attract so far the sought example effect, with no other such categories were created. That’s passible of argumentation, even though I’d remain unconvinced.
I’m also not impressed with the three possible fates for the members of this category as it is right now — only 14 subcategories:
  1. Adalia decempunctata
  2. Aircraft with 10 engines
  3. Clockfaces for French Republican decimal time
  4. Decagons
  5. Decahedra
  6. 10-sided dice
  7. Engines with 10 cylinders
  8. New Ten Major Construction Projects
  9. Ten-pointed stars
  10. Ten Major Construction Projects
  11. Ten-in-hand
  12. Trams with 10 doors
  13. Trams with 10 windows
  14. Ten-wheeled vehicles
Can you please array these 14 into the 3 suggested recategorizations? I fail to see how even one of them would be better catagorized with such move, let alone all of them. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tortoises in art

Please see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Statues of tortoises. Debate should be over there, this is just a notice.

In a nutshell: This category is placed in "Testudinidae", which means that only artwork of that biological family should be categorized here (AE definition of tortoise). However, the content includes all kinds of turtles as long as they walk on four legs (BE definition of tortoise), no regards to biology. Other languages don't even have such ambiguous distinctions among turtles. Enyavar (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1852 in New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:2023 in Hunter Region

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rico by year

these all end up in Year in the United States by state. Puerto Rico is not a state Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(2) In every case of Category:YYYY in Puerto Rico (e.g., Category:1937 in Puerto Rico) there is a template that is probably contributing to the problem above. That template reads,
States of the United States: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming – Washington, D.C.
Puerto Rico
To its credit, that template does list Puerto Rico separate from the states in the sense that it lists Puerto Rico alone, on its own row. However, Puerto Rico is not on its own block (I am defining a block as a political jurisdiction separated from the other political entities by a blank line/blank row. This format can give the impression that Puerto Rico is a state.
(3) Adding to the impression Puerto Rico is a state is that the Puerto Rico "block" has no header. This is unlike the previous block in that template (i.e., the one that starts with "States of the United States") which makes it overwhelmingly clear that the political jurisdiction entries that follow are states of the Union. To correct this, that template should have a header, such as "Insular areas of the United States", as follows:
States of the United States: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming – Washington, D.C.
Insular Areas of the United States: Puerto Rico
Of course, it should also list the other insular area, such as Guam and the U.S.V.I.
Mercy11 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder and Mercy11: I think the problem can be fixed by creating separate "United States by territory" categories for each "United States by state" category (unless we don't have any U.S. territory to contain in the corresponding category). That can fix similar issues in many other categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is already a 2009 precedent on this that uses instead "FOO of insular areas of the United States". It can be appreciated HERE (Category:Maps of insular areas of the United States).
I would, instead, propose that format be used. My reasons are
(1) avoids creating parallel categories, meaning, why use a new subcategory that is synonymous with an existing one?,
(2) "territories of" is too generic, but "insular areas of" is specific to the U.S.,
(3) it would be technically incorrect to use "United States by territory" because the territories are neither part of nor IN the United States (they BELONG TO the United States but are not IN the US, as only the 50 states and DC are IN the US, so you couldn't possibly organize a parent category (in this case, the US) by a set of members (in this case, by territories) when in real life those members are not true integral components of that parent category, and
(4) the "precedent" alluded to above incorporates a template (again viewable HERE) that uses precisely the very unambiguous format I was alluding above; this one:
States of the United States: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming – Washington, D.C.
insular area of the United States: American Samoa · Guam · Northern Mariana Islands · Puerto Rico · United States Virgin Islands – United States Minor Outlying Islands: Baker Island · Howland Island · Jarvis Island · Johnston Atoll · Kingman Reef · Midway Atoll · Navassa Island · Palmyra Atoll · Wake Island
That is, it unambiguously distinguishes the states from the insular areas. (The only quarrel I would have with that template, BTW, is that someone forgot to capitalize the "i" in "insular". I would fix it but don't know how to work with templates in Commons.)  :-(
Mercy11 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Curaçao by decade

It creates 1640s in the Netherlands, when it should be Category:Netherlands in the 1640s Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Toren Niko (Eindhoven)

Formally, the tower appears to be called "Lighthouse". That's why I renamed the category. So this category could be deleted. S. Perquin (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Damen Avenue, Chicago

Is this identical with Category:Damen Avenue? Should the entries be merged or the categories better named? NearEMPTiness (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Kept. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wagga Wagga (suburb)

It makes no sense to have a list of suburbs under the title "Wagga Wagga (suburb)" It would be better - and follow current conventions (not started by me) to use "City of Wagga Wagga suburbs". Suburbs don't fall under the suburb of Wagga Wagga. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... it looks like I've misunderstood this. It looks like the entries in the categorisation are the issue, not the category. We need a new category Wagga Wagga suburbs and move the suburbs of Wagga Wagga to this category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah crap. I've misread the items in the list. Need to close this down, what I thought were suburbs are streets! My bad. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

a list of categories starting with Icelandic pronunciation of "xxx"

I found a lot of categories inside Category:Icelandic pronunciation of geographical entities with only 1 or 2 files. These can all be moved into the parent category. Here is the list:

Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Faxaflói"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Berufjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Breiðafjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Eyjafjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hvalfjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hafnarfjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Jökulsárlón"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Baula"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hverfjall"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Akranes"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of lakes in Iceland
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of mountains in Iceland
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Mýrdalsjökull"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Skaftafell"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Skógar"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Þingvellir"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Austurland"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Jökulsá á Fjöllum"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Akureyri"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Blönduós"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Garðabær"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hafnarfjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Kópavogur"
Category:Pronunciation of "Landmannalaugar"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Vík"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Bláhnjúkur"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Bárðarbunga"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Brennisteinsalda"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Eldfell"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Eldgjá"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Fimmvörðuháls"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hekla"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hengill"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hverfjall"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Aldeyjarfoss"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Gullfoss"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Goðafoss"

Steinninn ♨ 08:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fondazione Museo della Shoah (Roma)

Please spell "Rome" instead of "Roma", or even translate the name of the museum, although they do not have an English website. NearEMPTiness (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Borisovka, Crimea

дубликат Category:Borisovka (Crimea) kosun (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Serlianas

"Serliana" as used in al subcategories, is plural. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical coats of arms of Burzenland

Category should be renamed to Category:Historical coats of arms of Țara Bârsei. Țara Bârsei is the most common name of this region in English, English Wikipedia and much of Commons have already updated to the current situation. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Eliot Higgins series)

this seems like a clear COM:DIGNITY violation. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I think this can be quickly closed here for this doesn't seem to be about the category as such but about the images in the category, so nominator choose the wrong forum. If the nominator thinks the images should be deleted, a deletion request for these should be filed, following the appropriate process, see COM:DR. VisualFileChange can be used to quickly nominate images in a given category. "Categories for discussion" is for discussing the naming conventions of categories and category deletion requests (note, not the content of categories). I don't think that a deletion request for these images would be successful, however, as they were quite widely discussed in the media and most of them are COM:INUSE. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Aerial photographs of Keflavík in 2024

User:Cryptic-waveform removed at least seven images (I know that because I was the photographer of those seven; see File:Aerial photograph of Keflavík around dawn, 2024-02-29 - 01.jpg for a typical example), then removed the parent categories and marked it for deletion as an empty category not likely to be useful. There was no indication of a rationale for why the category is not useful. This is simply not an appropriate way to propose removing a category. Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that its not the correct way to remove a category. But at the same time i feel this is overly specific for a category. These images should be in 'Images of Keflavík in 2024' and 'Areal images of Keflavík'. In my opinion. Steinninn ♨ 19:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Given the gigantic amount of less than ideal categories created by @Reykholt and @Hornstrandir1, it is just not feasible to discuss every single one of these rather clearcut cases. @Jmabel: Feel free to revert my changes if you feel like this category should exist. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
It's still feasible to provide an edit summary. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Fair. I'll do this moving forward. What do we do about this CfD now? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I want to also say that most of the categories made by Hornstrandir are useful and they deserve our thanks for their hard work over the years. But there are less then 1% of their contributions that are problamatic. And because of the large amount of categories they make this small procentage becomes very large.--Steinninn ♨ 20:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Administrator note: Because this CFD is still open, I have declined the speedy deletion request that was put on this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this category being deleted, now that there's been some explanation of why. FWIW, unexplained removal of a category from a bunch of photos followed by a speedy-deletion request for the category as being empty and not likely to be reused is going to cause any diligent user who had the category removed from their photos to waste a lot more time trying to understand what is going on than it could ever possibly save the person who is trying to save their own time by omitting edt summaries. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Category:Paintings of mythological giants