Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12

Category:Rectories

How is Category:Rectories distinct from Category:Clergy residences?

  1. Category:Rectories links to en:Clergy house, which states "A rectory is the residence, or former residence, of an ecclesiastical rector, although also in some cases an academic rector (e.g. a Scottish university rector) or other person with that title. In North American Anglicanism a far greater proportion of parish clergy were and are titled rectors than in Britain, so the rectory is more common there."
  2. Category:Clergy house, and Category:Parsonages redirect to Category:Rectories not Category:Clergy residences.
  3. Category:Clergy residences is currently a sub-category of Category:Christian buildings even though Category:Clergy refers to clergy from various religions.
    1. Note: that is not anymore so, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Religious buildings by religion by country. --JopkeB (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  4. Although en:Parish house redirects to en:Clergy house, Category:Parish houses is in neither Category:Clergy residences nor Category:Rectories, only in Category:Religious buildings -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: Generally, a classical rectory combines more functions. It is not only a house of the priest but also a parish office. In old times, rectory buildings often served also as a school, today often as a cultural and social center. In the Theresian Austria-Hungary, catholic rectories actually served as state offices and registries. As regards bishops, in some cases there is another building as the episcopal residence and another building as the episcopal office. In addition, there are chaplain houses, provost houses, canon houses, etc. - they are IMHO more residences than offices. I.e. a rectory is a type of clergy residence, and at the same time and in addition it performs paralelly other functions (an office, a school, a community center, a charity center, a parish archive and library etc.). Other types of clergy residences have more private function.

  • 1) E.g. in my country, the word "rektor" is used exclusively for a university leader, while an a Catholic (or similar) parish is leaded by a "farář" which means literally a parson, parish priest. However, the Commons categories for our parish houses (called "fara") are called "rectories". Some protestant churches use similar terms, some different ones.
  • 3) I'm not sure "clergy" is a suitable word for all non-Christian "clerics". In any case, it would be useful to branch these categories into Christian clergy and others by religion. Btw., a commont connotation of the word means religious leaders only, but etymologically, it can cover also monks, nuns, hermits etc. – it refers to "be called", not to the hierarchy function.
  • 4) Clergy house is a broader term than parish house, if we include bishops, chaplains, provosts, canons etc. But narower by function of the house. However, different churches (denominations) and countries may have different terminology and organization, and some local terms can be not unambiguously translated into English. It is necessary to find a compromise between the universality of category naming and respect for local and specific terminology of various denominations and countries. E.g. in Bohemia (the western part of Czechia), some Roman-Catholic rectories has a different title "deanery", which is just a historical honorary title. --ŠJů (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


(i'm not good with english). [https://www.iuscangreg.it/cic_multilingue.php?lang=EN There is Can. 556 about rectors (person) of churches. In pl. wiki, there are terms "parafia" and "rektorat" used as similar (but not same) and i read about many situations, when "rektorat" was changed to "parafia". So "Rectories" for me, looks not in term of building but rather in categories of terms like parish, abbey etc. VVerka5 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: A "Parish House" in the Episcopal Church (USA) is not a clergy residence. It serves as a parish center and may contain offices, classrooms, and a social hall. The function will be different from parish to parish depending on their needs and the size of the building. Farragutful (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Farragutful: Thanks, that's a useful distinction. It might be worth disambiguating between Category:Parish houses (residences) and Category:Parish houses (centers) or something of the like. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Themightyquill, ŠJů, VVerka5, and Farragutful: I am still confused, because descriptions and/or content seems not to be the same in Commons, Wikidata and EN-WP. To solve this I would like to turn it around: first decide what categories we need in Commons and then decide which names we give them.
What we in Commons need are apparently categories for:

  • Residential houses for clergy
    • For all kind of religions
      • For christianity, that may or may not also have other functions, like a parish office and/or meeting room
        • For bishops (episcopal residences), chaplains, provosts, priests, etc.
  • Residential houses for academic rectors
  • Rectory buildings with other functions than residential, for instance school, cultural and social center

Which English name goes with which description? (Or: what names will we give to these descriptions?) After that is clear we can decide which Commons categories should stay and make the necessary changes, including the category structure. --JopkeB (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@JopkeB: In Central Europe, the residential function of rectories is usually associated with the function of the parish office, and also a parish community house. Regarding the choice of an internationally applicable term, it would be appropriate to examine which terms are usually used for translation and whether they are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. "Parish" is confusable with UK municipalities, "rectory" with some academic buldings etc., "presbytery" is also a name for the front part of the church building etc. Some of these expressions may be perceived as specific to certain countries or denomination (confession). In contrast, the chaplain's or canon's house is really just residential. The word "clergy" does not cover all church functions - some Protestant churches do not follow the medieval tradition of "clergy", a sacristan is also not a clergy, I'm not sure if this term is appropriate for abbesses etc. I recommend not making any major changes unless we're sure it's a change for the better and won't cause more problems than it solves. --ŠJů (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Consistories

The category description says this is an administrative unit or office, but the parent categories are Category:Christian buildings and Category:Clergy residences. The desciption also notes that Category:Papal consistories are something else entirely (meetings) so they shouldn't be a subcategory. Themightyquill (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Description of consistories

I added the fact that consistories in Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism are usually bodies whose members decide in collegiality. The term consistory is – totum pro parte – also used for the building used by the body, like the term ministry denotes the authority competent for a certain field as well as the building where the authority has its seat. Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Parishes

Category:Parishes links to en:Parish (administrative division) (a secular administrative subdivision) and it has parent categories Category:Populated places by type and Category:Types of country subdivisions (also both secular). But en:Parish (religious subdivision) also links to Category:Parishes. Wikidata has Church parishes that doesn't link to commons. I would suggest we split into Category:Parishes (administrative division) and Category:Church parishes (or Category:Parishes (Christianity)?). Themightyquill (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep it simple. A lot of parenthesis is antiquated. If is it just administrative it shouldn't need parenthesis.
I.e. "Name, Country" i.e. St. Lucy, Barbados; Hamilton, Bermuda. If there's both "City of Hamilton, Bermuda" & "Parish of Hamilton, Bermuda"
If it is a church, or other, then just the "NAME" (denomination) 'parish building type', city. I.e. St. John's (Anglican) Parish Church, London; St. Mary's (Roman Catholic) Parish Church, London; or if it uses the alternate naming convention "Parish of St. John's (Anglican) Church, London"; or "Parish of St. Mary's (Orthodox) Church, London." etc. CaribDigita (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@CaribDigita: Either you've misunderstood or I'm misunderstanding you. I'm not suggesting we change the names of the invidual parish categories, just the names of the category Category:Parishes and its meta subcategories like Category:Parishes by country‎ and Parishes of Andorra‎, etc. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes church and administrative parishes are indeed different things though the latter are often based on the former. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: @CaribDigita: @Crouch, Swale: Formally, I am not even allowed to do anything cosmetic to this category. Could one of you, as it's been over a year just close the discussion. And confirm it's fine to cosmetically move Civil and Personal above the alphabetical list using | [space] after the category for them. Also would any view like to be had that we put an explanation that if a country has divorced its administrative from its (main) church parishes then please use a special subcategory. Or am I just stirring a hornet's nest.Adam37 (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Horns

Ambiguous. Disambiguate to Category:Animal horns and Category:Musical horns. Themightyquill (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I'm a little confused. You're suggesting a move from Category:Animal horns to Category:Horns (anatomy)? And Category:Horns (acoustic) should be the parent of Category:Horns (instrument)? - Themightyquill (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I was suggesting them as alternative targets to the tiles with brackets but "Category:Horns" should be a disambiguation. Note that the current Category:Acoustic horns is a sub category of the current Category:Horns. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
problem persists. There is Category:Horn (disambiguation) which should be renamed to Category:Horn (should be DAB) and Category:Horns should be redirected to DAB--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Themightyquill, @Crouch, Swale, and @Estopedist1: What should we do with this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be disambiguated but I'm not sure if the original proposal or any of my suggestions should be used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Engineers

Engineers are not a sub-cat of Scientists. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I was responsible for the "edit-warring" at {{Engineersyear}}, beeing unaware of this discussion page; please apologize. See also User_talk:Jochen_Burghardt#Engineers_are_not_scientists. for details. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose I repeat my edit summaries here, and add some subsequent remarks:
  • Categorizing engineers as (applied) scientists is commons practice on commons, see e.g. categorization of Category:Engineers, Category:Engineers by country, Category:Engineers from the United States, to list just a few. (I'm aware that this practice is just to be discussed; so this isn't an argument; however, it still might give an idea about which other categories are affected by the discussion here.)
  • en:Engineer's lead, ("The foundational qualifications of an engineer typically include a four-year bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline, or in some jurisdictions, a master's degree in an engineering discipline plus four to six years of peer-reviewed professional practice (culminating in a project report or thesis) and passage of engineering board examinations.") infobox, ("Activity sectors: Applied science"), and categorization (Category "Science occupations") support the view of engineers being scientists.
  • Up to now, Andy Dingley didn't give any justification for his opinion.
At least in Germany, engineers are considered scientists. For example, computer scientists usually have the choice to obtain a doctoral degree in engineering (German "Dr. ing.") or in natural sciences ("Dr. rer. nat."). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but do a google searc for "Department of Science and Engineering" and you'll find 45 million hits because engineering is generally considered separate in English-speaking academia. The distinction is even the subject of jokes. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that different languages/cultures categorize academics differently. In English, even academics in the social sciences are not usually described as "scientists", nevermind historians or other scholars. Elsewhere in the world, they can be. The same goes for engineers (fr:Sciences de l'ingénieur. The commons working language is English, but does that mean we use English cultural logic to organize our category tree, rendering it illogical to others? Do we make Category:Scientists a disambiguation page with links to Category:Academics and Category:Natural scientists? I'm not sure of the appropriate answer. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment We do have a Category:Natural scientists and a Category:Social scientists, and often subcategories by country, including Category:Natural scientists from the United Kingdom, Category:Natural scientists from the United States, Category:Social scientists from the United Kingdom, and Category:Social scientists from the United States. Despite their names, not all are (currently) categorized below Category:Scientists from XXX. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we have a mixture of both systems - one which uses "scientist" essentially as a synonym for academic, and one which uses "scientist" as a synonym for "natural scientist". That's problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Just some remarks:
  • I guess there is some commons policy to use the U.S. American system of notions if in doubt - ? So I'll try to cut out my innate bias towards the German notion system in the following.
  • The lead of en:Science (3rd paragraph) distinguishes as the three major branches: natural sciences (study of nature), social sciences (study of individuals and societies), and formal sciences (study of abstract concepts). It then mentions that engineering etc. is (not a main branch, but) subsumed under "applied sciences". It reports disagreement about formal sciences, since it doesn't rely on empirical evidence. Moreover, in my opinion, the en:scientific method (observation, skepticism, hypotheses, experimental falsification attempts) is not fully applicable in social sciences, since experiments with humans are subject to moral issues, and experiments with societies are hardly possible at all.
  • As a result, I still would suggest to subsume "applied sciences" (including "engineering disciplines") below "sciences". This subsumption does need a en:grain of salt, but so do formal and social sciences. Moreover, in formal sciences, the distinction between "pure" and "applied" research is rather fuzzy (e.g. theorems from one mathematical subfield are often applied in other one, although both subfields are "pure"). I also wouldn't like to consider theoretical computer science as formal science, but non-theoretical computer science as non-science. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Dealing with terminological questions, we should base on enwiki. Could en:Category:Engineers or en:engineer help us?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Conclusions

@Andy Dingley, Jochen Burghardt, Themightyquill, and Estopedist1: As per my analysis of this discussion:

My solutions to this problems are as follows:

--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Category:Engineers as a child of Category:Applied scientists, just as Category:Engineering is a child of Category:Applied sciences, in accordance with the Hierarchic Principle and Universality Principle. We are not English Wiki; they do what works for them, but we have a very different objective then them so it makes no sense to mimic their categorization schemes.  Strong oppose trying to mimic English Wiki in this situation. Josh (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Do It Yourself (DIY)

I see no need in having the abbreviation in parentheses in the name of the category. Moreover, the words should not be capitalised (which also applies to some of the subcategories) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

of course no need in having the abbreviation in parentheses--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I moved parent cat, but there are problems with subcategories, eg:
Videos of Do It Yourself (DIY) --> "Videos of DIY" or "Videos of do-it-yourself" or "Videos of do it yourself"?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Estopedist1: If it's an adjective, it should definitely be spelt “do-it-yourself”. So: Category:Do It Yourself loudspeaker designs‎ → Category:Do-it-yourself loudspeaker designs‎; Category:Electronics DIY‎ → Category:Do-it-yourself electronics, Category:Synth DIY → Category:Do-it-yourself synthesizers (that's probably a different story. But I'm unsure about the two sorted on top. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft temporary exhibited at Ukraine State Aviation Museum

seems to be a bad category. For example, already exists category:An-2 at Ukraine State Aviation Museum‎ Estopedist1 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it would ready "temporarily" rather than "temporary" I don't see the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Deutsche Rechtschreibung

On the first view, this appears to be just a duplicate of Category:German spelling, until you notice the category is a subcat of Category:German dictionaries, which suggests that the first volume of the Duden book series is meant. It has to be clarified what the category's topic actually is. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't see anything that indicates it's for particular book. I would suggest a move to Category:Books about German orthography. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Except for the categories. But I think if there is going to be a category for the first Duden volume, it should be called Category:Die deutsche Rechtschreibung (Duden). It would not quite fall under your category suggestion as it's just an orthographic dictionary. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Can all the content be moved to Category:German orthographic dictionaries ? For that matter, what is an orthographic dictionary vs a regular dictionary? Google isn't giving me any answers. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
No, not all, but some, although I'd prefer a category specifically for the Duden dictionary for now. Regarding the orthographic dictionary, d:Q378914. Usually, it doesn't provide much more information than how a word is written. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Some notes: enwiki en:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_1#Die_deutsche_rechtschreibung (link fixed — Speravir – 23:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)). If I see dewiki de:Deutsche Rechtschreibung, then it is reserved to the general concept--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I vote for converting Deutsche Rechtschreibung into a redirect for either German orthography or German spelling. In fact, these other two categories are duplicates of each other, the only question is which one to keep and which one to convert into a redirect, as well. Fun fact: Category:English spelling has at time of writing a Wikidata object with the description “Category:English orthography”, while Category:English orthography has no Wikidata object and also very little categorized items. (Pinging @1234qwer1234qwer4, Themightyquill, Estopedist1.) — Speravir – 23:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 as Speravir Oursana (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this would harmonize the language with spellings of other languages --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Category:Orthography suggests it is slightly broader than Category:Spelling, and I believe the German word better fits that broader sense. I don't know whether we need to have separate by-language categories for spelling and orthography, though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, orthography is broader than spelling. I do think we need to have two separate categories for spelling and orthography though, since spelling is the more common term but applies more narrowly, while orthography is broader but the term is less commonly known. I started doing some sorting related to this for other languages but will need to spend more time on it. Kreuz und quer (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
My question was mostly whether enough content existed on Commons to warrant creating the different categories. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think so based on what I've seen and started doing. "Orthography by language" categories would serve as containers for the various spelling, handwriting, etc., categories by language.
Or perhaps these categories should be "Writing by language"? Same concept but using a more common term, which might distinguish better between "language orthographies" (i.e. texts/books) vs. writing conventions, which I see there has already been some confusion over in those categories. Kreuz und quer (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I also support this. Deutsche Rechtschreibung as used here is just the German translation of German orthography. So merge the two and remove 'German spelling' and 'German dictionaries' because they should be subcats of German orthography. Kreuz und quer (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I also support this merge into Category:German orthography (which focuses on precise standardized linguistic rules for normal writing in German, where as "German spelling" also includes some non-standard orthographies which may still be spelled or or less precisely, ignoring some typographic or contextual differences). Category:German orthography may include subcategories for specific German orthographic reforms (with some date/country/insitutional/academic precision for their origin) and evolution of the standard (e.g. the recent introduction of the capital Esstset standardized in Germany, but still not in other countries).
Except that "Category:German dictionaries" is unrelated and refers to a very common category of publications in German (printed books or online, including German Wiktionnary, and bilingual dictionnaries, or terminologic lexiques, which frequently include different orthographic choices, neologisms, or borrowed terms or morphemes from other languages, possibly translitterated and possibly still without orthography standardized), and that should NOT be merged. verdy_p (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Anton of Montfort-Pfannberg

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Francis Xavier, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg.

I formally object to this redirect, as shown on User talk:Mhmrodrigues#Please stop re-numbering the nobles according to your own system! NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Which redirect? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The category was previously called Category:Anton IV. von Montfort. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)--NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ulrich II, Count of Montfort-Tettnang

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Francis Xavier, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg.

I formally object to this redirect, as shown on User talk:Mhmrodrigues#Please stop re-numbering the nobles according to your own system! NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Maria Theresa of Montfort, Abbess of Buchau

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Francis Xavier, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg.

I formally object to this redirect, as shown on User talk:Mhmrodrigues#Please stop re-numbering the nobles according to your own system! NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Wait, I don't understand what's the problem here... Isn't she an Abbess? I just didn't put her numbering in the category. The numbering doesn't refer to her family, but probably to her role as abbess, as the second one of that name. Should I rename, for example, "Maria Theresa (II) of Montfort, Abbess of Buchau"? If I put a number on her, however, people will think that that were another Maria Theresa in the family. So, to avoid this, is that a problem to take the number out, in this case? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mhmrodrigues: Thank you for the explanation, which makes sense to me. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there another Maria Theresia of Montfort, that requires this to be disambiguated by title? German wikipedia has the article at de:Maria Theresia von Montfort. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:John III, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Francis Xavier, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg.

The number is still being disputed - according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_of_Montfort he is "John V" NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see any dispute. The talk page there has no issues. Are we certain that all three images are about the same person? The guy in the picture is said to have been born in 1627 and is listed as VIII. Don't know where John III or John V is coming from and it all seems to be based on a very poor source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hugh III of Werdenberg-Heiligenberg

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Francis Xavier, Count of Montfort-Pfannberg.

He is commonly known as "Hugo II. von Werdenberg-Heiligenberg" NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Hi! No, this is Hugo Cocles, not Hugo II. The redirection is wrong. By the way, have you seen my table of Counts of Werdenberg (in the page "County of Werdenberg")? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Do either of you have a source? I don't even see an article on any pedia about this person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr)

The following categories are nominated for renaming without "of Thessaloniki", and in the last case with "(Great Martyr)" instead:

Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr) to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr)
Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr) churches to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr) churches
Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr) churches by country to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr) churches by country
Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr) churches in Greece to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr) churches in Greece
Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr) churches in Russia to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr) churches in Russia
Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki (Great Martyr) churches in Moscow to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr) churches in Moscow
Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki Church in Pokrovskoye (Moscow) to Category:Saint Irene (Great Martyr) Church in Pokrovskoye (Moscow)

Irene of Macedonia (died 2nd century or 315) was the Great Martyr, not Irene of Thessaloniki (died 304). See sources for the former at en:Irina#Origin. The latter is one of three martyr sisters covered by the page en:Agape, Chionia, and Irene.

The two Irenes are currently also wrongly conflated at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q264096.

The topic for Category:Saint Irene of Thessaloniki Church in Pokrovskoye (Moscow) is the ru:Храм Великомученицы Ирины в Покровском, the "Church of the Great Martyr Irina in Pokrovsky".

I do not know which Saint Irene is commemorated at the churches in Greece, but I suspect that they should all be Irene the Great Martyr.

The image used in all articles is File:Irene of Thessaloniki.jpg which was taken from Geocities and is probably also wrongly named, as the archived source page https://www.oocities.org/athens/1367/irene.html (although titled "St. Irene of Thessaloniki") is about Irene the Great Martyr, and the same image is called Irene Great Martyr at https://www.orthodoxmonasteryicons.com/products/irene-the-great-martyr-icon and http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/18346 (that page includes "Thessalonica" in the title but not in the remaining text). I have therefore requested renaming of the image file to File:Irene (Great Martyr).jpg.

(OrthodoxWiki has an article about Irene Great Martyr but wrongly titled "Irene of Thessaloniki". This has been challenged on its talk page.)

Fayenatic london (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that el:Αγία Ειρήνη (μεγαλομάρτυς) conflates the two as well, no? Greek wikipedia has an article named Saint Irene (Great Martyr). Couldn't it be that Saint Irene (Great Martyr) is known as Saint Irene of Thessaloniki around the world, even though there was another Saint Irene who was from Thessaloniki? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless I have missed something, Irene the great martyr was not documented anywhere as being from or of Thessaloniki. It seems probable to me that the conflation of the two started as an error on Wikipedia and has spread to some other websites. Fayenatic london (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Antagonists by role

Seems rather pointless to have metacats for a parent category with only one subcategory. Why not just move Villains in Antagonists and delete this? IagoQnsi (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Keep--Allforrous (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not a vote, it's a discussion. I also don't see the point in having Category:Antagonists with nothing but a subcategory Category:Antagonists by role. In fact, I don't see the point of having both Category:Antagonists and Category:Counterparts to the protagonist since they're obviously redundant. Both Category:Antagonists by role‎ and Category:Counterparts to the protagonist‎ are also in Category:Fictional characters by role in the narrative structure which is COM:Overcat. Put the relevant subcategories in both Category:Counterparts to the protagonist and in Category:Stock characters. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

El rol del antagonista es algo importante, por lo cual no veo razon para dejarlo de lado. --Allforrous (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The role of the antagonist is something important, so I see no reason to put it aside
translator: Google Translate via --Estopedist1 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Perspective SVG

The current name does not make much sense to me, I suggest renaming it to Category:Perspectiva (image set by User:Dnu72) or something similar referring to the category being a set. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

De Category:Perspective en formato SVG: Category:Perspective SVG. Dáni (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It did not make sense, and it was not an image set. I moved the content to Perspectives of blue cube with circles and Perspectives of solved Rubik's cube. Perspective SVG is still there, but empty. If someone wants to put all SVG images in Perspective in that subcategory, go ahead. I think it is insane to categorize images by file extension, but some people consider filter like categories an alternative to filters. Watchduck (quack) 06:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Watchduck: I don't think that name is proper English, and also the general naming convention is putting “SVG” at the front. I suggest tagging it for deletion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Leila Hatami in hijabs

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/12/Category:Women wearing hijabs by name.

Same as Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Actresses wearing hijabs in Iran. Hanooz 10:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the same argument applies. The other one was an intersection of three things: actresses, hijabs, and location Iran. This is an intersection of only two: a specific person and hijabs. I'm not saying we should necessarily keep this category, but we'd need a different reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 Keep The category is useful and the reason deosn't applies here. Minerva97 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I tend to vote  Delete. All pictures we have from Leila Hatami on Commons is with hijab. So if this category should be added to all of them, what is the use of it? HeminKurdistan (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Delft by Marion Golsteijn

Why would we need a specific cat for pictures by this user? Tukka (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Nothing against this cat, but it must not be a substitute for Category:Delft nor any subcat under it (therefore, excepting COM:OVERCAT), and should be tagged with {{Hidden cat}}. All contents recategorized as Category:Delft now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Some pictures were already in subcats of Delft, so I deleted cat:Delft from some of them. I'm not familiar with the hidden category rules, but I thought it's a bit strange to have all kinds of photographer's categories within categories. So making it a hidden category sounds good to me. Tukka (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Users and source categories can be organized how they want, but they shouldn't be in the category tree for the subjects of photos. No one looking for a photo of Delft cares who took the photo, or wants to search through categories of individual photographers to fine it. Remove Category:Delft by Marion Golsteijn from Category:Delft and ensure the same is true for all the other subcategories of Category:Photographs by Marion Golsteijn. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Because we have a vast collection from the Dutch national archives, and some of these are tens of thousands of images from one photographer, all in the Netherlands (mostly professional newspaper photographers from the '50s–'70s). See Photographs of the Netherlands by photographer and Photographs by photographer from the Netherlands. So thematic collections, by photographer, are our best way to structure these – and by location (where this location is mostly fairly broad, but also as narrow as remains relevant) / photographer and even by year too is so far our best result.
We need a specific cat for picture by this user because otherwise the previous category was 4,300 images, and a category that large is pretty much useless
We should keep these categories of subject / photographer, and keep them visible, because these are primarily thematic groups about the content. This isn't just wiki editors tracking their own uploads. Many of these sets, such as Photographs by Willem van de Poll of the Jewish work village at the Wieringermeer or Photographs by Willem van de Poll in Soestdijk Palace (1947) are of specific events, with their own significance and coherence more than the simple name description alone implies. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
4,300 images is not that remarkable, I have uploaded more pictures. I understand your point when it comes to professional (historic) photographers, but that's not the case for this user. I don't think it's a good idea when, especially a big category as 'Delft', is filled with categories for all kinds of hobby photographers, like me for instance. Tukka (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
But 4,300 is pretty much useless as a category. It's just annotational at that point, but no longer useful navigationally. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

stale disscussion. The nominated category is now a hiddencat, and I also removed the parent category:Delft (I also checked these 24 files, and all of them are somehow categorised into Category:Delft, eg some files into Category:Sculptures in Delft)--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Deshabille in art

On English wikipedia, Deshabille redirects to en:Negligee which defines it as a see-through dressing gown/night gown. That doesn't seem to be the working definition of this category. I'm humbly propose upmerging to Category:Housecoats in art but I'm open to suggestions if I've missed some important distinction. -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think deshabille (which is like negligees) fits under housecoats. However, a lot of the images under Category:Deshabille in art don't seem to fit the definition of deshabille -- they're more like dressing gowns (which category redirects to housecoats). --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Many of the photos show dressing gowns but are called deshabille. This led me to suspect some ambiguity in French and fr:Déshabillé backs that up: "Le terme déshabillé a d'abord servi à désigner les robes de chambre pour homme avant de désigner un vêtement d'intérieur féminin constitué d'un ensemble en tissus coordonnés constitué d'une robe de chambre et d'une chemise de nuit souvent transparente." I'd suggest deleting this category and making a dab page at Déshabillé. - - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Further note: Wiktionary has two definitions of deshabille. One is a garment, but the other, which I've seen used more often, means the state of being partially clothed. I think that second one applies to most or all of what's in this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Daniel N. Butler

person is not notable Downtowngal (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Downtowngal: firstly, you have to nominate File:Daniel N. Butler at Griffith Observatory 2018.png for deleting, because of possible lack of notability.--Estopedist1 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
keep the category, or upmerge the file (because in general, one-member categories should be avoided whenever possible). His Wikidata entry is with numerous backlinks (see Wikidata:Special:WhatLinksHere/Q28140172), so deletion of the above-mentioned file is not actual--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pavements (architecture)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Floor mosaics.

The category description for Category:Pavements (architecture) says "Pavements used in building interiors and outdoor rooms." Meanwhile en:Pavement (architecture) refers to " an outdoor floor or superficial surface covering." We also have Category:Pavements, ostensibly for outdoor pavers. Confusingly, Category:Pavers (flooring) is for both outdoor and indoor use. Can we find some clearer naming scheme? Themightyquill (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The current system is as follows:

The basic purposes of each category seems reasonable to me, but there are lots of problems:

  1. All three should be peers, yet there's no obvious parent. I think Category:Paving is just for roads? Maybe Category:Paved surfaces?
  2. Category:Pavements is ambiguously named, but I can't think of a clear alternative that includes paved roads, paths, etc. (Category:Thoroughfare pavement?)
  3. Category:Pavers (flooring) suggests to me indoor flooring only, but it includes roads that use pavers. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "Pavements" - this may be more complicated, as in the UK the term "pavement" is used for what they call "sidewalk" in the USA, and not generally for the hard surface of a road. Not sure about the history of this. Just stumbled over this difference again when categorizing a file. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Schlosser67: Good point. I had forgotten about that. All the more reason not to use an ambiguous name like Category:Pavements. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Regarding the "pavements" thing, I'll implement the following category scheme:
--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I'm not sure that solves the need to disambiguate between pavement(s) as space filled with solid concrete and pavement as space filled with pavers. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I've replaced the above scheme with the following:
Pavements will be a disambiguation page to disambiguate between Paved surfaces, Footpaths and Walkways. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: But "Paving" and "paved surfaces" do not just refer to spaces with pavers. It also refers to areas where concrete (etc.) has been poured. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm correcting the proposed description to include both pavers and road surfaces (concrete, asphalt etc.). Now I've included both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I have also replaced Paved surfaces with Pavements to match with the subcats in Paved surfaces by material. The Pavements category will link to Footpaths and Walkways. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Due to further considerations, I've proposed a new category scheme:

--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Themightyquill: who had statrted the CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
For me the terms are also confusing. I think the major part of the proposal of Sbb1413 looks good:
  • The first part of Paving, about the process:  Agree
  • But I would like to have Pavements as the main category, including the process of Paving (as a child). And define it as "all kind of surfaces that have been paved" (not only "for materials used for paving"), indoor and outdoor.
@Themightyquill, Crouch, Swale, Estopedist1, Schlosser67, and Sbb1413: Please give your reaction, then I hope we can close this discussion soon (it dates from December 2019). JopkeB (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413 and JopkeB: I'm a little confused. Is Paved floors both for paving stones/tiles/etc and for Category:Asphalt concrete around buildings? If so, why is it a subcategory of Category:Pavers (flooring)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 April 2024‎ (UTC)
Or perhaps "Pavements" should be a DAB but otherwise this seems fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

New proposal

@JopkeB, Themightyquill, Crouch, Swale, Estopedist1, and Schlosser67: To avoid cluttering here, I have made a new proposal on pavements at User:Sbb1413/pavements. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sbb1413, for reviving this discussion. First of all I agree that Category:Pavements should be the main category. Questions about other aspects:
I agree with the rest of the redirects and renaming. JopkeB (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:1 display

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/11/Category:Groups by size.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/10/Category:Groups.

Dubious utility and arguable overcategorisation; a whole load of images were moved here from Category:Computer monitors, which they shouldn't have been as this new category isn't a subcategory of that. (Images have been restored to that category). Ubcule (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Gotta agree. Also:
Category:1 displayKeep
The concerns above are valid questions, but do not rise to the level of warranting a change to this category:
  • Being of 'dubious utility' is a distinction held by most categories in at least some users' view, so is not really a good cause for deletion. This individual category is part of a broad schema of categories (Category:Objects by quantity), so its utility should not be viewed in isolation, but instead as part of a system. If the entire schema warrants deletion, it should be raised at that level, not an individual category.
  • There is no overcategorization violation here.
  • The image move was an inadvertent mis-click which has since been corrected, so isn't a factor to be concerned with in this discussion.
  • Definition of a display is a matter for Category:Displays, not this individual sub-category of that parent. Presuming that Category:Displays is a validly defined category, it follows that Category:1 display would likewise be validly defined.
  • Commons category names are certainly not determined by The Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Handbook, https://www.grammarly.com/blog/when-to-spell-out-numbers/, or other such guidelines, so non-compliance with them is not cause to change a category name. Policies for category names can be found at COM:CAT and this category is in compliance with them. Additionally, the current name is in compliance with recent CfD's linked above.
Josh (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: If- and I mean if (#)- Category:Display makes sense, it's only as a top-level holder for subcategories. It's really too broad on its own to have any meaningful utility- everything currently in it could and probably should (given the time and inclination) be moved to a subcategory.
So then, the question is what meaningful use a category that was essentially the same would serve- whose only difference was that its images contained "one" display, particularly as that includes most of the images in Category:Display anyway. I mean, just because you can rationalise it being well-defined (or as well-defined as its parent) in a logical sense doesn't necessarily make it of practical use.
(#) And I notice that even that is being questioned at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Displays.
Ubcule (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Additional ; "Overcategorisation" above was- rightly or wrongly- intended to refer to the proliferation of hierarchies and marginally useful (if at all) categories rather than the file-related meaning you linked to. Ubcule (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ubcule: Don't get me wrong here, I am not of the opinion that Category:Displays is a good category. The point is that so long as it is there, standard sub-categories such as 'by quantity' are fine to exist. If Category:Displays is subsequently removed as part of the aforementioned CfD (thanks for spotting that one, I have linked it at the top), then great, the 'by quantity' subs will also be removed. As for the overcat comment, that is certainly fair enough; it is important to distinguish that it is not actual policy violation (COM:OVERCAT), but instead the more subjective idea that we have about a billion too many categories already for seemingly useless groupings. In the first case the violation must be resolved or a clear case for special exemtion carved out, but in the second it is more just a matter of opinion as there is no established threshold of usefulness that automatically validates a category being retained or deleted. Josh (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
More still(!); As I commented here, it's still not been made entirely clear whether this category is for devices with one display, or for photos with one display visible. If the latter, is this really meaningful? Is it even useful if the former? I'd have thought devices with two or more displays might be noteworthy enough to warrant a category, but those with one are so common as to render such categorisation pointless. Ubcule (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ubcule: Files under Category:1 display should be files which depict one and only one display. Categories for items which have one and only one display can also be categorized here. A category for a device with 2 displays should be placed under Category:2 displays. So for the example you provided, the file itself depicts a single display, so should be under Category:1 display. The device is a 2-display device however, so its category, Category:Nintendo Playchoice-10 or whatever it would be called, would go under Category:2 displays or an appropriate sub. The key here is to not conflate the file depicting an item with the item itself. Ferrari F1 is a team of 2 cars, but if a file only shows 1 of them, it goes under Category:1 automobile. Josh (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for your explanation. However....
Regarding Category:1 automobile, I notice that you created that category yesterday, and I have similar reservations about it as well.
Even though you have clarified what these categories are supposed to be for, I still do not see that they are likely to be of much meaningful use.
You seem to be leaning on literal adherence to guidelines and policy to defend their existence rather than making any meaningful case as to whether the categories are actually useful. With respect, they come across as little more than onanistic categorisation-for-the-sake-of-it.
Anyway, I'd welcome someone else's (unbiased) input with a fresh eye on this as I've probably said all I can at present. Ubcule (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Airports by IATA code

This category has many problems. (I will add details a bit later.) Apalsola t • c 20:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion applies to the following categories:

This category structure creates two additional categories for each and every airport containing only one subcategory, the actual category for the airport. I do not think that is the purpose of COM:CAT. Commons is a file repository, not a code database. (Wikidata is there for that purpose.) I suggest these categories are deleted. ––Apalsola t • c 20:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Haven't got the will or the time for this. I was trying to be helpful. If not useful, delete the lot and I will not need to work on it further. Ardfern (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)  Keep: Wikidata is stepping on the toes of Commons (all that SD nonsense) and Wikitionary (lexemes in WD), not to mention its injecting of (mostly bad) data into many Wikipedias via infoboxes, so the quibble above is a weak argument. These intermediary categories are not necessarily synonymous as argued — as the the same code may have been historically attributed to more than one airport (cp. the discussion of IMO hull numbers vs. ships by name), and it allows the codes themselves to be categorized as part of the Category:Three letter combinations tree, etc. That said, these ICAO and IATA cats should be further categorized along a few more creteria, and an overall flat parent cat is needed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The cases multiple airports share a single IATA and/or ICAO code are very few, so there is no reason to make a large category structure for them.
Wikidata may have its problems but it for storing airport codes it is still superior over Commons.
Calling someone elses argumentation as "quibble" is not very productive nor very strong argumentation itself. ––Apalsola t • c 22:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hunting down other editor’s work and putting it up for deletion as if it were mere vandalism is not productive at all. You can count on me to vehemently oppose this kind of “production”. Ardfern’s reaction to this CfD shows how much this kind of deletionist zeal is deterimental to our project.
Furthermore, even if Wikidata were totally flawless, it’s still a separate project. In Commons we store and curate imagery and other media pertaining to airports, which happen to have 3- and 4-letter codes; we also store and curate imagery and other media pertaining to other instances of 3- and 4-letter combinations — creating means to link those together is a legitimate part of our work. That alone would necessitate these intermediary categories (which I am now renaming by adding (IATA code) and (ICAO code), to redirect to newly created 3-letter combo cats); the reattibuted codes you mentioned, rare as they may be, further justify them.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
How refreshing to hear a voice of reason and common sense. Agree totally with points and concerns re Wikidata. I had also forgotten about all the letter combo cats - good connection. Ardfern (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ardfern: We are legion. We just need to stick together to avoid being trampled by better connected do-nothings. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not "hunting down" anyone's work nor accusing anyone for vandalism. I simply think that these particular categories (albeit certainly created with good faith) do not actually improve Commons.
One more thing: There are endless types of different identifiers that could be used as a basis for redundant categorisation, such as
However, such categories do not exist, for a good reason, I think. Why should airports make an exception?
I think the whole idea of categorisation is to make finding files easier. Having deep category trees including categories containing only one sub-category does not serve that purpose. ––Apalsola t • c 01:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It’s exactly for a good reason that some of those identifier sets actually exist as Commons categories, others eventually will exist (sooner or later, depending on vandalism), they will fill up eventually, and their existence does improve Commons, for it makes finding files easier. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
My entire purpose in this was making finding files easierArdfern (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It does not make any sense to blow up the number of categories by creating a dedicated, single-purpose Cat for each and every ICAO Code (there are 10 000+).
In every one of these new categories you'll get he message: ""This category has only the following subcategory:"".
A simple redirect perfectly serves the same purpose.--Uli Elch (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
*  Keep. These provide a structured method of finding and navigating these airports in a way that redirects would not. These can actively help users looking for product and in no way harm the project. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
According to this logic we could as well invent tens of thousands of further categories like Category:B707, containing nothing than just "Boeing 707" or Category:BAW, its sole inhabitant being "British Airways". They would be equally useless as Category:39 aircraft, Category:Letter A on aircraft or Category:Aircraft numbered 67736.
It does not make finding files easier, since redirects perfectly serve the same purpose. It would actually be them which would improve Commons, for they make finding files easier.
Do we really want (let alone need) countless newly invented categories in which nobody except their creators will ever be interested in? --Uli Elch (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Lets see what the creators of those «countless newly invented categories» think about your deletionist campaign. @Dltl2010 and Joshbaumgartner: -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, is there any chance that any of these categories would every have any content besides the one airport sub-category? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Some codes of closed airports have been reused for the new ones, two examples:
In addition, some cities with multiple airports have an additional IATA code covering all airports serving that city (LON for London, for example).
These cases are very rare, however. I would say over 99% of all IATA and ICAO code categories contain the one airport sub-category only and the few exceptions do not justify these category trees. ––Apalsola t • c 13:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC) –– (iw link fix) Apalsola t • c 15:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of what I expected. I would think redirects would be valuable as a search aid, but I don't see the point in a category that will only ever contain one sub-category... - Themightyquill (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
From wikidata:Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P238#"Unique_value"_violations, there are 281 cases where the same ID is used twice, out of 9,188 total. Having redirects shouldn't help the search, as the infobox already includes the text of the code in the category, but it might be interesting to double-check whether a redirect does make a difference. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Most of them seem in most of the cases the code is just added both the airport itself (such as Wikidata:Q39164) and some facility, such as military air base located within the airport (such as Wikidata:Q4380750). Now in Commons the latter would probably be a subcategory of the former, so there would still be only on subcategory in the IATA code category. And actually it is probably to add IATA code to a Wikidata item of a military air base if there is a separate item for the airport since IATA has nothing to do with military aviation. ––Apalsola t • c 01:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 Weak keep both categories. Although most IATA and ICAO codes have been used for only one airport, there are cases where such codes have been used for multiple airports, and we should keep only the exceptional cases. Not only that, there are IATA codes that denote multiple airports at once (like LON for airports serving London, BJS for airports serving Beijing). So I think Category:Airports by IATA code should be merged to Category:IATA codes, while Category:Airports by ICAO code should be renamed to Category:ICAO codes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

National Film Awards India ceremonies

Category:50th National Film Awards India winners to Category:50th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:51st National Film Awards India winners to Category:51st National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:53rd National Film Awards India winners to Category:53rd National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:54th National Film Awards India winners to Category:54th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:55th National Film Awards India winners to Category:55th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:56th National Film Awards India winners to Category:56th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:57th National Film Awards India winners to Category:57th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:58th National Film Awards India winners to Category:58th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:59th National Film Awards India winners to Category:59th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:60th National Film Awards India winners to Category:60th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:61st National Film Awards India winners to Category:61st National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:62nd National Film Awards India winners to Category:62nd National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:63rd National Film Awards India winners to Category:63rd National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:64th National Film Awards India winners to Category:64th National Film Awards India ceremony
Category:65th National Film Awards India winners to Category:65th National Film Awards India ceremony

I think the categories for the various "National Film Awards India winners" really should be (for example) Category:50th National Film Awards India ceremony and onward. The winners category should remain for people who have won the award while we can move these ceremonies from underneath the winners category into a separate Category:National Film Awards, India ceremonies category under Category:National Film Awards, India. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense, since it shows awards, rather than listing award winners. It might also make sense to change from a counting format to a year format Category:National Film Awards, India by year could go in Category:Film awards by year. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In similar lines of Academy awards; in Wikicommons; we should link by year of the 2000 National film Awards, India and in Wikipedia by the Number of National Film Awards, India (2nd to 66th etc). The above system is for the images of the ceremony wherein the winner recieves the Award. Winners individually should be left like that as we do for other Padmashri recipients.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Themightyquill I don't think that makes sense. For example, the Category:60th National Film Awards India winners hosted in 2013 is for films of 2012. en:Template:National Film Awards confusingly calls it the 2012. The en:68th National Film Awards held in 2022 were for films in 2020. The numbering seems to be the most consistent naming convention like the Academy Awards. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Sure, that's logical. So move to ceremony but keep the number instead of year. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Files from JD Lasica Flickr stream or Category:Photographs by J.D. Lasica

Okay, should we have a category at Category:Files from JD Lasica Flickr stream or Category:Photographs by J.D. Lasica? I think, if all these images come from this flickr contributors prolific flickr stream, then it should be at the flickrstream category.

Category:Files from JD Lasica Flickr stream contains 36521958135@N01 (photos · photo sets).

If Ms or Mr Lasica signed up here, and uploaded even a handful of images, they should be in the other category.

Note: less than 10 percent of this prolific photographers images are in either category. We should have a bot for adding flickr images to the appropriate category.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we don't have any of Lasica's images that don't originate from Flickr. They have been uploaded by various uploaders. So that would steer us towards Category:Files from JD Lasica Flickr stream. On the other hand, we do have Category:J. D. Lasica and there's an article at en:J. D. Lasica, so perhaps his notability would give us reason to use Category:Photographs by J.D. Lasica? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
stale discussion. Interesting CFD. Thinking ahead, then we will probably have files by J. D. Lasica, which are not from his Flickr stream. And this category can be put into Category:Photographs by photographer from the United States. So, probably keep Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Hermandad de la Pasión (Málaga)

Es duplicada de esta: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Archicofrad%C3%ADa_de_Pasi%C3%B3n_(M%C3%A1laga) Escuzao (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Escuzao: if we haven't established English name for this confraternity, then per Spanish Wikipedia merging into Category:Archicofradía de Pasión (Málaga). Possible may be also Category:Archicofradía de Pasión--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pathways diagrams

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Pareto diagrams.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Dot charts.

What is Category:Pathways diagrams for? Is it redundant with Category:Route diagrams? Themightyquill (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Shoulder loops

What's the difference between Category:Shoulder loops, Category:Military shoulder loops and Category:Military shoulder straps? -- Themightyquill (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As you say, Trenchcoats's loops and Police uniform's loops also "Military".
start from 2015 () --Benzoyl (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
But, I am a little confused. This case. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Almost, Shoulder loops derive from "Military uniform". Military or Non-military ? is very difficult. --Benzoyl (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The marks can be military or non-military, depending on what they indicate. The loops themselves (which the marks attach to) don't indicate anything. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Specific topic, but maybe en:shoulder strap clarifies the situation. Enwiki has 0 links to en:shoulder loop--Estopedist1 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Since "shoulder straps" alone is ambiguous, and "military should straps" might exclude non-military ones, I'm leaning towards Category:Shoulder loops with Category:Military shoulder loops as a sub-category, and redirecting Category:Military shoulder straps to Category:Military shoulder loops. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2021 (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.

Category:Turmerone

Only one item here (one other, headed for deletion, is not even the correct image of this topic, and which led to this cat having an incorrect parent-cat). There are a family of related compounds that together have a several possible parent-cats (based on structure, natural source, etc), I propose recasting as Category:Turmerones DMacks (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree Allforrous (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Renamed. Since this nomination has been open for years without opposition, I have renamed the category as suggested. (non-admin closure) Marbletan (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Gloriette (alphabet image)

Badly named category containing two images showing text from a gloriette. No reason for such images to have a separate category. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete, --Bohème (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 Delete--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Hartmut Kaminski

Wie erstelle ich eine Unterkategorie? Kajo2019 (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kajo2019: ich war ein paar Tage im Urlaub und komme erst jetzt dazu zu antworten. Hat sich deine Frage erübrigt? Wenn nicht, ping mich einfach nochmal an. Grüße --Tronje07 (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
stale discussion which seems to be solved because subcategories are already added. CFD can be closed--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Neutrino physics

Epitethon “physics” is unnecessary. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Ping as you closed Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Muon physics. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Muon physics was simply an upmerge to Muons. Forgive my ignorance on the topic but in this case, are you suggesting an upmerge to Category:Leptons, or a rename to Category:Neutrinos? Josh (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I was just suggesting a rename; there are definitely enough media for the separate category. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: In that case, it sounds fine to me. If there are no objections by 2 weeks, go ahead with the change or ping me and I'll close it. Josh (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Catenary signals 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

not correct - Tese signals do not necessarily relate to catenary, they can also relate to third rail operation. Official name for this type of signals in Switzerland is "Signale für den elektrischen Betrieb" = railway signals for electric operation. -- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gürbetaler: Thanks. Probably we should have a separate category on catenary signs? Also, what about the naming of the subcategories? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that "electric operation" would be a universal choice. Otherwise you need to verify which signals refer to overhead operation only. I'm not familiar with third-rail singnalisation in the Souther Region or around Paris (or even around New York). Perhaps anybody can clarify. Signalling of the only Swiss third-rail operation (Martigny–Châtelard) is very sparse.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vintage Postcards from Norway

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:Liberation in Trondheim.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/12/Category:World War II in Trondheim.

Should be renamed to reflect that it is a subcategory of Category:Images from The Municipal Archives of Trondheim Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Move to Category:Vintage Postcards from Norway, Municipal Archives of Trondheim. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To be honest I think the category is pretty much redundant. There might be a point in having a category for the postcards from The Municipal Archives of Trondheim, but 'vintage' is not a well defined term. I'll say, either have it at Category:Postcards from Norway, Municipal Archives of Trondheim, or skip the category altogether. Blue Elf (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Postcards from Norway, Municipal Archives of Trondheim. Cheers, Alexander Radiojunkie (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Jews in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia

Suggest moving to Category:The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia per similar categories, e.g. we have Category:The Holocaust in Slovakia but not Category:Jews in the Slovak State. Buidhe (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The case of Category:The Holocaust in Slovakia is not the same. The are of nowadays Slovakia was divided to Slovakia and Hungary, so Category:Jews in the Slovak State would be clearly synonymous to Category:The Holocaust in Slovakia. However, the area of Czechia/Czech Lands/Bohemia-Moravia-Silesia was divided to Sudetenland and Protectorate. Naming the category Category:The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia:

  1. would be ahistorical,
  2. would negate advantages of clear distinction between Sudetenland and Protectorate. Bohemia and Moravia has no clear meaning. Would it include also Sudetenland (which we do not want) or not?
  3. Also name "The Holocaust" instead of more general "The Jews" is not good solution. "The Holocaust" would implicate that the only thing concerning Jews in that time was the Holocaust. But this would be surely narrow-minded view of all dimensions of Jewish life (and not only death) at that time. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look at what's in the category, all of it would fit in the more specific category that I recommended. I don't think it's ambiguous: the two books on English on this event are The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia: Czech Initiatives, German Policies, Jewish Responses and The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust. Neither include the Sudetenland. Furthermore, if images are found that are of Jews/Judaism in the Protectorate but are not related to the Holocaust this category could be recreated. However, the scope of this category ought to exclude Holocaust memorials (all of them built long afterward), which makes it less useful. Buidhe (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Daniel Baránek: It seems to me that you are mixing several different questions in the discussion.

  • Should be the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" represented by the short name "Bohemia and Moravia"? This is a problem that Daniel Baránek is dealing with. The short name is inappropriate because it violates the consistency of the categorization structure and because it is historically ambiguous. I suppose Buidhe doesn't insist on the abbreviated name, and he just didn't realize the difference in territorial delimitation, that the Protectorate was just a part of the whole Bohemia and Moravia (maybe, it is a similar distinction as between the whole Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; similarly with Tirol, Franconia, Cyprus or Macedonia, or two republics of the Congo or two republics of China).
  • What is the relationship between those political-geographical names? Simply said, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia were parts of the pre-war first Czechoslovakia, Bohemia and Moravia are parts of Czechia, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia is also just a part of Czechia, as well as the Sudetenland is. Here is the question of whether to have territorial categories for each of these topics at all of these levels, or whether to prefer certain categories - in any case, the categorization should be consistent. The fate of the Jews from the Sudetenland also belongs to the history of Czech (Bohemian and Moravian) Jews, both German-speaking and Czech-speaking ones.
  • Are the categories "Jews" thematically quite identical with categories "The Holocaust", for the period of the Second World War? Was there no other theme and aspects for the Jews at that time than the Holocaust? Does all Jewish life at that time fall under the item of the Holocaust? Is it possible to divide these two topics in any way? Should be "Jews" a subcategory of "the Holocaust", or "the Holocaust" a subcategory of "Jews", for the same area and period? Is it appropriate that there were no special category for the Holocaust in Czechia (Bohemia, Moravia)? I believe that this was originally the core of the proposal.

I created the missing category "The Holocaust in Czechia" (and its subcategories for the Protectorate as well as the Sudetenland) and kept "Jews in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" as the parent category of "The Holocaust in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". However, I'm not sure which images and themes to move to the category below, from "Jews" to the "Holocaust". Everything is somehow related to the Holocaust, but not everything is directly part of the Holocaust. However, I think that the introductory problem has already been solved in principle, now all that remains is the daily endless work of sorting the content. --ŠJů (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • ŠJů I'm not sure I follow. The holocaust in Sudetenland and the Protectorate should have separate categories as it's a quite different affair and it is two separate articles on enwiki, en:The Holocaust in the Sudetenland and en:The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia, the latter name is used as it is the common name in reliable English-language sources for the Holocaust in the Protectorate. There was no territorial entity of "Czechia" at the time; "the Holocaust in Czechia" is ambiguous (does it refer to the present borders of the Czech Republic or the Protectorate?), ahistorical, and not used in reliable sources. Buidhe (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: That's why I created both subcategories "The Holocaust in the Sudetenland" and "The Holocaust in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". The categorization tree in Commons correctly uses the full name for the protectorate. If the English Wikipedia has one inappropriate article title, it probably stems from the author's ignorance towards facts as well as violation of naming consistency (see en:Category:Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia). Sudetenland was (and is) also in Bohemia and Moravia and Silesia, but not in the Protectorate. Czechia has its relatively stable territorial identity since the Middle Ages. It certainly existed much earlier than the Czech Republic, and at least since the baroque period it has appeared under this name (which is also relevant retrospectively at least for the two core lands of the Bohemian crown). Undoubtedly, Czechia existed as the western part of Czechoslovakia, even though it did not have its own republic before 1969 and was not an administrative unit (it was called e.g. "Czech regions" ("české kraje") in such post-war Czechoslovak legislation which didn't apply to Slovakia, which has its form of assymetric autonomy even before the formal federalization). In the same way, Moravia existed continuously even at the time when it was not a separate administrative unit, but only a part of the Moravian-Silesian Land. In 1993, the Czechia did not originate, but only became a subject of international law. And don't forget that the Protectorate legislation was annulled by Czechoslovakia after the war and the continuity of Czechoslovak law was declared retroactively.
As regards the practical aspect, the Commons categorization is based primarily on the current administrative division, i.e. we try to structure the categories related to the past on the modular principle so that the division is as compatible as possible with the current division. For example, the categories of monuments related to the World War II (including the Holocaust) are categorized only according to the current division, not according to which monuments are in the territory of the former protectorate and which in the territory of the former Sudetenland, and also not by historical land. If we have the category of "Holocaust monuments in the Czech Republic", then we need its parent umbrella category of "Holocaust in Czechia", and there is no reason why we should not have it. --ŠJů (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Er, no, "The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia" *is* the term used on reliable sources on the topic, (none of these cover the Sudetenland) similar to "The Holocaust in Slovakia", which refers to the Holocaust in the Slovak State although this state did not have identical borders to the present day Slovak Republic. That said, it's not incorrect to insert "Protectorate". "The Holocaust in Czechia" is ahistorical but perhaps it's useful for Commons purposes, it would be deleted if you made such a category on enwiki. Buidhe (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wrestling by gender

Since there's only a category for women's wrestling here, I don't think we need this "by gender" category. I leave it to others to say if we need the women's wrestling category itself. Auntof6 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - i barely remember making this category, ages ago, but i think there are SOME male wrestlers out there, no? & as with most sports, they tend to differentiate by male/female (setting aside transgender issues just for the moment...). so in terms of the category-schema, what should be happening here, is that we sort male/female wrestlers. i don't really care about the exact wording of category names for it. but "by gender" is more or less the default parent-category for this kind of differentiation. Lx 121 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

ALSO - just added the cat. for male wrestlers. Lx 121 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion.  Delete unique sports discipline category in Category:Categories by gender Estopedist1 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Delete Per Estopedist1. Looking through some of the categories for sports in Category:Categories by gender a lot of them have like 7 sub categories you need to click through to get to the files and then it's just 1 image. So the whole "by gender" is clearly just needless and excessive when it comes to sports. Including wrestling. Although there are specific leagues for women's sports, but then they are inherently about women to begin with. So I don't think it's useful in situation like that either. Especially on the team or player level. Or it all just becomes a game of nested categories that never leave to an actual image or if it does there's only one image for a single gender. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 Keep Duh. This category currently contains:
I wouldn’t look forward to diffusing those 444 files (plus whatever other files are further down the category tree). Luckily, this category never got deleted, and those files have already been diffused.
Lesson: Stop deleting categories prematurely!
Real lesson: Commons intends to be here for more than the next 5 minutes, so start thinking about how it can be managed efficiently in the long term!
Now, it’s about time someone closed this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mission San José (California)

I have been looking over the category California missions. It appears this should be a high level category with each of the missions, such as, Mission San José (California) as a subgroup. Why is California missions listed as a “Gallery” instead of a “Category”? Why does the California missions page not have an entry for this category despite its inclusion at the bottom of this page? I would have placed this on the California missions page, however, that page does not have a “Nominate category for discussion” link. Johnson-Bob (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Since 2007 there is a Category:California missions. --Achim (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: When you say "I have been looking over the category California missions," you are linking to the gallery, not the category. The following pages exist:
The category does have subcategories related to individual missions, as is the purpose of categories. Gallery pages are more freeform. There can be as much or as little on them as people care to add, with as much or as little organization as they want. It's good if such same-named gallery pages are fairly organized and comprehensive, but it's not required. It isn't even required to have a gallery page at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Auntof6, I didn't say that, should have pinged Bob. --Achim (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Achim55: Oops, you're right. Sorry about that. Thanks for pinging him yourself. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Addendum - Thanks for the information and help. Let me clarify a couple of problems I am having. First is namespace collision. There is “California missions” which is both a category name and a gallery name. From Wikipedia I followed a link expecting to get to the category and instead found myself in the gallery. Commons will show, “What links here” only from Commons, so I have no way to trace back to Wikipedia to determine which links go to the gallery and which links go to the category.

A second problem I am having with the Category:Mission San Jose (California) is where to place a new photo or conversely where to find an image. The category has two subcategories”Interior of Mission…” and “Sanborn Fire…”, and many images under “Media ….”. So if I took a new image of the exterior of the mission, should I place the image in a new subcategory paralleling “Interior” named “Exterior” or should it be placed in Media. If it was to be placed in “Media” then shouldn’t the two subcategories be removed?

This still leaves the problem of, do I also include this new image in gallery “California missions”? The gallery is very incomplete for something with such a grand name.

I have chosen Mission San Jose as an example. These same questions apply to the categories for all 21 missions.

I have not pinged anyone on this as I do not know how it is done.Again Thank you. Johnson-Bob (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnson-Bob: You can just upload to the main category, and it will appear under "Media..." If you're uploading an image, put it in the narrowest possible category that's still accurate. So if you were uploading an image of the interior, you'd put it in the "Interior..." subcategory, but since there is no "Exterior..." category, you'll just use the main category. I hope that makes sense. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)