Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08

Category:Languages of Bengal

Although Bengali is the primary language of this region, categorizing Category:Bengali language directly in this category would violate COM:OVERCAT, as it is already categorized under Category:Languages of West Bengal, Category:Languages of Bangladesh, and Category:Languages of Tripura. So there's no utility of this region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It currently has three subcategories. What's the issue with these?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historic sites

What comes under this category can be subjective. This category is similar to the now-deprecated Category:Historical images (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You mean the images people add can be subjective or that actual subcategories? I don't think there is a link to "Historical images". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 People will categorize whatever they consider a "historic site" under this category, which can be files or subcats. This category should be replaced with Category:Archaeological sites, Category:Cultural heritage monuments or similar, which are indeed officially designated as "historical". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
So you are saying the images can be problematic, not the subcategories of this category as such. Thanks for the clarification. Yes. it happens that people have subjective interpretations of categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delete "Historic" is to ambiguous. Although Infrogmation makes a valid point about things like World Heritage Sites and items on the National Register of Historic Places, but Category:World Heritage Sites isn't a child of this category and I don't see why Category:National Register of Historic Places inherently needs to be one either. There's plenty of similar categories to this one that they can both go in. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
 Keep but  Move and populate that cat: A historic site or heritage site is an official location where pieces of political, military, cultural, or social history have been preserved due to their cultural heritage value. Historic sites are usually protected by law, and many have been recognized with official historic status. – not all historic sites are officially recognized historic sites. This cat is about the various (subcategorized) types of official recognition of such sites or the respective sites per each. It could be named e.g. "Officially recognized historic sites" and info that this cat is currently missing many files could be added. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Buses not in service

What name format should subcategories use? Would it be all right to use format number 1 below?

Their names are structured in several different ways. See also Category:Trains not in service and Category:Trams not in service.

  1. [Vehicles] in [Location] not in service: I would assume "Buses in Austria not in service‎" aligns the best with the main category "Buses in Austria" and its other similarly named subcategories.
  2. [Location] [vehicles] not in service: I suppose Category:Lisbon trams not in service‎ is an acceptable format.
  3. [Vehicles] not in service of [Location]: I don't think e.g. Category:Buses not in service of Canada works very well.
  4. [Vehicles] not in service in [Location]

Sinigh (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support Option 1 – It aligns best with the parent category and also the Universality Principle, especially "[i]dentical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Added a 4th possible format, from Category talk:Trams in Finland not in service. Sinigh (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Old city maps of Munich (extended to any City maps of)

This is like "Old country map of Germany" and "Old continental maps of Europe".
My suggestion is to rename to "Old maps of Munich", to be in harmony with the other "Old maps of <city in Germany>" Enyavar (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Special:Categories/City maps of should go in general. The ones that aren't about cities should redirect or be moved as Category:City maps. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Weirdly, we have Category:City maps of Périgueux and Category:Maps of Périgueux. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see now that Category:Maps of Munich has a diagram to show which maps are supposed to go where (but either practice didn't always follow theory, or I don't understand it). It appears is if the "city maps" category might have been supposed for "whole city" maps of Munich, and the boroughs/districts were supposed to go into "old maps of boroughs in Munich", the latter being a mixture of "details of old maps of" and full maps of some districts. This seems to be a rather unique structure that is not observed for any other "maps of city" category I know of. --Enyavar (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting diagram. Too bad it isn't a svg and its creator isn't active any more. I guess ideally there was subcategory for the "entire city" even though these would generally not end up in subcategories.
I still favor upmerging "city maps of" to "maps of" if the category is for a specific city. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I think so too. But I'll bring it up with the WikiMuc team, let's see if they agree as well. --Enyavar (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
 Weak keep As far as I understand, "city maps" are detail maps of the entire city, as opposed to neighbourhood maps and locator maps. For example, Kolkata Street Map.svg is a city map of Kolkata, while Kolkata map.jpg is a locator map of the city. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, you would have Category:Country maps of India for the entire country, Category:State maps of India for one or more states/territories, and Category:Locator maps of India for the country within a region (Asia, South Asia etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Why would we do this here and not for any other topic? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
There are a few cases I know where such a category structure is in use, for example Category:Old maps of whole Wales (alone). This category name clearly dictates how large the map frame must be: Partial maps of Wales are not allowed, and neither are maps of England+Wales: Wales, whole and alone. Contrary here, "Old city maps of Munich" does not prescribe the content in the title, and the content was placed accordingly: partial maps, detail maps, cutouts are there besides the old maps of the whole Munich in its proper city walls. If "Munich, whole and alone" is a desired category, it should still be better named, for example "Old maps of Munich (entire city)" and it should be a sub-category of "Old maps of Munich". But as it stands now, all "old maps of..." are considered "old city maps" by default, as are the "old maps of boroughs". --Enyavar (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I meant the use of "city" (or "country") to indicate that the subcategory applies to the entire city. Sample: Category:Politics of the United States and Category:County politics of the United States. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe Category:State flag of Bahia and Category:flags of Bahia use "state" to make this difference (Also "National flag" and "flags of"). Contrary to the city maps above, this seems to work out though (plus "state flag" is an actual concept wheres even "city maps" of boroughs are "city maps"). Enhancing999 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
 Keep IMHO, "city" does not primarily indicate that the map relates to an entire city, as opposed to neighbourhood, but that it is a specific type of a map. City maps (at least this is true for the German correspondent "Stadtplan") generally show streets, squares, built areas, green areas, waterbodies etc., sometimes also public buildings, churches, castles, museums etc. In this sense, thematical maps like this one are not city maps. City maps are thus a specific subtype of maps relating to a city, so that a Category:City maps of Munich, for example, is useful as a subcategory of the Category:Maps of Munich. --Bjs (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, there seems to be a misunderstanding, please check Category:Old maps of Munich which is a redirect. As of right now, it is presumed that any "Old maps of Munich" are automatically "Old city maps of Munich". That is contrary to the opinion you offered above. --Enyavar (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This has been made by an IP some time ago and does not make sense. Truly, most of the Maps included there are city maps in the sense I indicated above, but there are also categories that imho ar no maps at all, but old views of Munich. Old maps of Munich should be an intermediate category between Old city maps of Munich and Maps of Munich. The category tree generally is a bit confuse, but if Maps of Munich is subdivided into categories by map type, a category for the map type "city map" should remain. (unsigned edit by Bjs)
Sorry to correct you, but Chumwa (who created the current structure and even made the diagram) is not an IP. On the subject matter: your proposal is an alternative to the "upmerging" proposed by Enhancing. I don't favor either of these practical solutions. --Enyavar (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rail substitute bus transport

The subcats are named either "rail substitute bus transport" or "rail replacement buses". The current category name is possibly for the parent category Category:Rail substitute transport. However, I think "rail replacement bus transport" is more common than "rail substitute bus transport", regardless of ENGVAR. So the Universality Principle applies. If not, we should wait until the discussion at Commons talk:Categories ends. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support I've never heard anybody say "rail substitute bus transport" Mikinisk (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Teenagers in Vietnam

Category:Teenagers in Vietnam AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Create the category, since "teenagers in Vietnam" may refer to teenagers located in Vietnam, regardless of nationality. Whereas Category:Teenagers of Vietnam is a general category for teenagers somehow associated with Vietnam (Vietnamese citizens, teenagers of other nationalities in Vietnam etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete AnVuong1222004 (7) (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@AnVuong1222004 (7) Why delete a valid redirect targetting to the correct name? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mukah Iskandirov

Rename to "Mukash" Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like many of the categories made on the MPs are not made by an actual Kazakh speaker. Some of the naming is a mess. I request that Category:Galimgyan Eleyov is also removed. Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Videos of debaters

should this be kept given that it misses nearly all files? Prototyperspective (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: I am not sure what you mean by "misses nearly all files". Do you mean "includes almost no files" or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean that there are many videos of "debaters" on WMC but they aren't included there. It's unclear and may be unreasonable to refer to people as "debaters" and in any case a "Videos of debates" cat would make more sense. Either way it's not the case that there are nearly no files of this type on WMC, the category contains only an arbitrary one. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
If RS calls them debaters is there really an issue? Trade (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes and I agree with what Omphalographer said below. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Concur. There's a couple of intersecting issues here:
  1. A "debater" is not a well-defined category of person. Notable people who have engaged in debates can usually be described in some more specific way, e.g. "philosophers", "politicians", "YouTube personalities", etc.
  2. Videos and other media of debates (not "debaters") are better categorized based on their participants or content than their format, e.g. Category:Debates about religion, Category:Philosophical debates, Category:US presidential debates, etc.
  3. Most videos of podcast-style debates on YouTube have negligible educational value and should not be imported to Commons. (This is a separate issue from the category itself, but is worth keeping in mind.)
Omphalographer (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Floor of the Senado Federal do Brasil

There are now some 65000 files in this category and its subcategories. Maybe some or all of ca. 4500 should be in Category:Ulysses Guimarães plenary chamber (of the Chamber of Deputies): . Enhancing999 (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999 That category should not even exist, please see here. The stubbornness of a single editor in keeping that aberration as a name blocked its normal development, causing that situation. Of course it has not anything to do with "Floors", it's just a Plenary chamber. If someone manages to delete this nonsense, please kill it with fire so it can't come back. Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You are referring to Category:Floor of the Senado Federal do Brasil? I agree that the category name isn't ideal, but I'm not really sure which alternative to suggest. At least, I tried to add a description to define its scope. Maybe we can first agree on that and later determine the name? I think we should have separate categories for the interior of each plenary "room".
I wasn't aware of that discussion of 2020 (will try to read it in more detail later). Enhancing999 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 From what I recall it was supposed to be the main chamber, what is usually called the plenary chamber. Darwin Ahoy! 14:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tm: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pottery of Soudan

Needs parent categories. Does this refer to present day Sudan, South Sudan, or Mali? Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:PNG special or fictional flags

Special or fictional" no es un buen modo de categorizar. 186.172.32.233 01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Discutir abajo en la mayor categoria por favor. 186.172.32.233 01:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
We don't generally categorize files based on their format outside of SVGs.

Merge up to Category:Special or fictional flags, and merge the child categories to their likewise format-agnostic counterparts. The parent category is a bit of a messy catch-all in its own right, but at least it contains the mess to one category. Omphalographer (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Special or fictional flags

"Special or fictional" no es un buen modo de categorizar. 186.172.32.233 01:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Rename to category:flag designs without attestation. National flags, pride flags, flags from creative works (which I agree it would be good to diffuse by source, but that sounds like a secondary consideration to what this wastebasket cat should be for), and the various fantasy sports club banners can all fit into subcategories of category:flags by content, but only those who don't have a physical equivalent should be in this category IMO. Arlo James Barnes 00:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unexpected twist

I don't understand what this category is intended for. (Possibly things held upside down, judging by the categories it's in, but contradicted by the images that's in it.) I asked its creator on July 28 (Category talk:Unexpected twist), but no response so far. Suggest delete. Sinigh (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Google translates the Japanese description as "reverse hand", possibly referring to the reverse grip being used on an object in each photo - but this seems like a weirdly specific detail to categorize on. Omphalographer (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I want to rename this category.
Why did I named in 2017, like this category-name...It's probably mistranslation. Sorry.
What I'd like to say is "Reverse grip",
from the concept of Horizontal bar (png) --Benzoyl (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see! "Reverse grip" is used similarly in weight training as well. But doesn't that refer to objects that remain oriented the same way? It doesn't seem like the objects in this category and the images below are "gripped" in that sense, since both the "grip" and the orientation of the object itself change with the orientation of the hand, whereas horizontal bars and weight-lifting equipment need to be "regripped" for the grip to change. Sinigh (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I think "(2) Reverse grip" is rare case. = Contrastingly Mostly (3). Therefore this category have a necessity.
Exempli gratia "How to Hold the Steering Wheel" (jpg - "Boss Grip?") --Benzoyl (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
But a steering wheel is attached to the car. You don't "grip" a microphone in that sense; instead, the microphone itself is oriented differently depending on how you happen to move your hand. That's not what happens with horizontal bars and steering wheels. Sinigh (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Holztafelbild

I do not understand the scope of this category, should go together with Paintings on wood Oursana (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Category:Paintings on wood does not fit with the wikidata about "painting made on an easel or other portable support”. I suggest to create a wikidata “Paintings on wood” and move the content of Category:Holztafelbild to the category “Paintings on wood”. Wouter (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Georgian buildings out of Georgia

Delete We not not categorise things by what they are not. Where would it stop? "Georgian buildings not in the moon"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete — We generally don't create categories based on Boolean logic. But we have categories like Category:American culture abroad, which is similar to the nominated category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Is there any other "Xian buildings out of X" category in Commons? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:1891 maps of Vietnam

Why is this category being deleted? It was used for dozens of maps and these are now in a much less specific category. Why? Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The speedy justification of "Incorrect name" makes no sense, the vast majority of images moved to the 1890's category were in this category. If someone is specifically looking for 1891 maps of Viet-Nam then a specific category is much better for searching something than a vague "1890's" category, especially since administrative boundaries change frequently and searching by specific year is much better than by decade, especially since there are annual maps that could be found on Gallica, it makes very little sense to move maps from easily searchable categories on much more broadly-defined less specific categories. I don't think that re-users will appreciate having to go through more files to look for what they want. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe ping or notify whoever is involved. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It appears to be part of a large-scale effort to eliminate maps by specific year, and instead just have maps by decade. @Enyavar: Can you respond to this? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello Auntof6, yes, that is indeed a larger effort. Pre-digital map-making was not like taking photos, where you literally create a snapshot of the current situation. Instead, it was a multi-year-long production cycle (surveying, calculating, map-making, print and publish), meaning that almost no pre-digital map could show the real situation of its publication time. This situation war extreme in the 15th-to-18th century where maps were reprinted unedited for 50 years and longer; the production cycle shortened dramatically in the 19th century to roughly about a decade; by then end of the 20th century it was usually just 2-3 years.
This results in the situation that sorting old maps by their publication year (or some other date that involves their making) is in fact just as arbitrary as sorting them by the publication month. That is why old maps should be sorted by century, or if necessary by decade. If there are still too many maps per decade, they should be grouped by other factors they have in common, not by year: For example, if 20 out of 50 maps were all from the same publication, then they deserve a subcategory "name of publication" to have a less crowded parent category. Or, one can subcategorize the maps by the actual location, instead of mixing city maps, building plans, provincial maps and national maps all together by production dates.
I'd think that you could recreate the category as a category-redirect to the decade category, though. --Enyavar (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pte A. J. Davis Memorial, Appleford

Why has a category been created for one unremarkable brass plaque? This is over-categorisation. Motacilla (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The appropriate parent categories should be applied to the file, and the category deleted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cinema events

What's the difference between this category and its subcategory Category:Film events? For example, why do Category:Film premieres, Category:Film festivals, Category:Film awards belong here and not in Category:Film events?

Shouldn't "Cinema events" and "Film events" be merged, because how could the former not include the latter?

Sinigh (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it is not strictly included: films/movies can be documentary/scientific/educative or for training people to some skills, or video records of musical, theater, music, and other live cultural performance, or historic/sportive/political/social/religious/news events. Cinema is narrative, but also includes animations, which are not strictly films/movies, with a creative mounting and normally fiction (even if they are inspired by real facts, they are usually not intended to give a truth but leave place for imagination or fabricated and recreated/simulated scenes and to what authors, producers, directors, actors, artists and various other skilled workers wanted to perform and show. Film events and cinema events are however frequently mixed in festivals showing multiple genres). The first cinema movies were in fact news report for demonstrating new technologies and real catastrophes, rapidly they were used for political propaganda, with invented or voluntarily biased narrations with fictive characters or in fictive time or fictive and decorated places. verdy_p (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought perhaps you were making a distinction between cinema and video in general at first, but then it became a little difficult to follow. For example, who says that only the concept of cinema, and not film, includes animation? And what does "Cinema is narrative, but also includes animations" mean, that animation isn't narrative? I doubt you will find broad consensus for such distinctions, and more importantly, I don't see how they are useful here. Sinigh (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film

This category currently has the description "Film is a term that encompasses individual motion pictures, the field of film as an art form (cinema), and the motion picture industry", but it also has Category:Films and is itself in Category:Cinema rather than encompassing it.

Wouldn't one category be enough and make more sense? For example, enwiki only has Category:Film, with Category:Cinema redirecting there.

See also Category talk:Film.

Sinigh (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment Some cleanup seems in order; I'm not sure of the best way to do it. "Films" seems to be for individual movies. "Film" of course (among other common meanings) was long the main technology of still photography, for more than 100 years between the early glass plate Daguerreotype and modern digital photography. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. I think one category is enough and that categories should be subcategorized more precisely, when needed; that is more useful than this vague and inconsistent cinema/film distinction. This category currently has e.g. Category:Film advertising, which in my opinion clearly belongs in Category:Film industry. For the technology, there is Category:Photographic films. Sinigh (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps

A while back we looked into the larger coordinates category and noticed that we could avoid using categories for their usecases.
Do we still need this? Is there are particular usecase that couldn't be handled with Category:Pages with coordinates? That category should soon include all these as well . Once this is true, I'd deleted this one. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: It's useful to know which categories and galleries have coordinates that are being added separately from the Infobox, since ideally all coordinates on categories and galleries should just be on Wikidata now. I think we still need the separation of categories for that purpose. In particular, Category:Pages with coordinates should *not* include coordinates added by the Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think MediaWiki can differentiate between {{Wikidata Infobox}} and {{Object location}} when adding Category:Pages with coordinates. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Your thinking is based on which facts? Andres Ollino (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
On the fact that I don't know which parameter it would be. Maybe you have some knowledge that contradicts this? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I was wondering if your usecase was this (categories with coordinates and infobox, but not in "Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps"). I excepted this to find {{Object location}} but no coordinates in the infobox. Oddly it finds Category:Castle Ellis Bridge which has coordinates in the infobox, but no category. Seems someone made some manipulation with the infobox parameters.Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems there are currently about 350 such categories: . Enhancing999 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That's part of it, but there's also the case of pages without the infobox at all, but there are coordinates. The odd one is because trackingcats has been set, so the infobox doesn't add tracking categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think "pages without the infobox at all, but there are coordinates" are a usecase for "Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps". Can you list those you actually need so we can check if the category is still needed. Per phab:T362494#9869450/phab:T343131, I think we shouldn't have large categories in cases where these can be handled by other means and, as for any maintenance category, there should be a clear usecase. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that Category:Pages with maps is the one I was looking for, since that currently catches cases where maps are added but not by the infobox. Those should probably have Wikidata items created for them, where they don't already exist and are just unlinked to Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Category:Pages with maps in process of being renamed to Category:Pages with coordinates.
Do we still need Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps or can we delete it? If it's needed, can we edit the category description to explain its use cases? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, that's a shame. It was useful to have separate categories for uses of templates like {{Location}} and those of {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I guess this search will do the job (slightly modified from yours above), but I think that requires both Category:Pages with coordinates and Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: Have revised Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps accordingly, is that sufficient to justify keeping this category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
For the usecase "For categories with coordinates that do not yet have Wikidata items", the following should be sufficient: "Special:Search/Category: hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates" -hastemplate:"Wikidata Infobox"
The usecase: "has Wikidata items, but no coordinates at Wikidata" seems the only one that needs this category. It has problems with cases like "Castle Ellis Bridge" mentioned above. Maybe there is a better solution for that, but until it's found, I'd keep this category. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Kriegelstein von Sternfeld family

Sollte gelöscht werden, ersetzt durch https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Kriegelstein_Edle_von_Sternfeld_family; siehe dazu auch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegelstein_von_Sternfeld; es gibt zwei Familien ähnlichen Namens GerritR (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Skim (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wolayita people

Duplicate , This category is duplicate of Category:Welayta people. Discuss on merger of the two categories. Malaalaa (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You may merge it. Don't worry about it. Sintegrity (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In fact, it seems to be a duplicate. However, could we maybe have a bit of standardisation here? I see various names for articles in en.wiki, as they have Wolayita Zone but Welayta people. What's your take on this, Malaalaa and Sintegrity? Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Different articles write the name of people differently. they write as Wolaita, Wolayta, Wolayita, Welaita, Welayta, Welayita. But correct pronunciation for the name is Wolaita in their mother language Wolayttattuwa. So when we standardize, we should consider the pronunciation of the name by its people. I think making Category:Wolayita people as visible category is working decision for the future. Malaalaa (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:People performing sexual activity

I don't think this topic requires the normal diffusion by age/gender that is used in most topics, since as far as I am aware, any images of children here would violate legal limitations. Of course, since we don't have those images, it is not controversial to not have the children categories, but I bring it up here because it seems to also obviate the need for the adult categories as there is no need to diffuse by child/adult here. There are two ways to do this so I'm wondering which of the two (or something else) is a better implementation of the Hierarchic Principle and Universality Principle:

AB
Eliminate diffusion by child/adult via upmerge to non-diffused parent Eliminate diffusion by child/adult via deletion of parent categories
resulting in:resulting in:
AB

This would of course percolate down through subs and apply to other genders as well.

I would propose (B) for starters as its seems more compliant with the Simplicity Principle and makes it more obvious that images should be limited to adults. Josh (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

B this is clearly more sensible and the W:WP:COMMONNAME of the subject, but it should just be People performing sexual activity also per simplicity principle. If you think uploading images of children performing sexual activity is acceptable in the first place then I think that’s covered by the “wtf is wrong with you” principle. Dronebogus (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • commons is NOT wikipedia. the policy you cited at wikipedia, DOES NOT apply @ wmc. "best practices" @ commons' categorisation favours precision, accuracy, disambiguation, etc. i.e.; we DO NOT file species under "most common name". Lx 121 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner:  Support per Dronebogus. Currently most people categories have children, men, women as subcats. Since child sex is a crime in almost all countries of the world (AFAIK), men and women can be used for "male humans" and "female humans" respectively. So I support the following option:
C
Result
C
This still follows the Hierarchic Principle, as men and women are subtypes of people. The Universality Principle may not hold since "men" and "male humans" are treated as synonyms for this category structure. However, the global criminalization of child sex is a valid reason for the contrary, and follows the spirit of meta:IAR, which is applicable for all Wikimedia wikis, not just Wikipedia. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
 Support Sbb1413's proposal C. Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should. Omphalographer (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Describing people as "humans" sounds markedly unnatural ("Hello, how are you, fellow humans?"); if we can avoid doing so, we should.

That's a different matter altogether. My proposal is not to replace "humans" with "people" but to eliminate the adult/child distinction in the subcats of Category:People performing sexual activity. The elimination is necessary, since we don't have Category:Children performing sexual activity due to the worldwide criminalization of child sex. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Right - I mean that your proposal differs from proposals A and B above in that it avoids the stilted "[adjective] humans" phrasing for all three categories. Omphalographer (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
@Omphalographer, there is a discussion underway to change 'humans' to 'people'. If that is adopted, these categories will be renamed as a result. This proposal is really about the structure of these categories, not whether they should use 'humans' or 'people'. Josh (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • the primary purposes of most of these categories relate to human biology, human anatomy (as do most of the contents). "PEOPLE/PERSONS" is an imprecise, ambiguous term that ALSO APPLIES to a variety of "non-human" subjects; even WITHIN commons' scope. such as: fiction, mythology, hypothetical extraterrestrials, a.i., animal rights, legal entities, etc. NONE OF WHICH belong in categories for human biology, anatomy, etc. Lx 121 (talk)
 Oppose Option C, as it is disjointed, in that it mixes age-specific and non-age-specific categorization. "People" is not diffused by age, but "Men" and "Women" are. If the argument is that 'adults' is too specific and 'people' will do, then it would stand to reason that 'men' and 'women' are too specific and simply 'male' and 'female' are sufficient to diffuse by gender. If on the other hand, we want to be clear that only adult contents are permitted, and thus use 'men' and 'women', then the parent should likewise be 'adults'. Mixing the two leads to a disjointed hierarchy and doing so just because this or that category name might sound more 'natural' is not a strong argument. If a particular category's name is a problem, let's discuss an improvement, but breaking the logical hierarchy to avoid using a category with a name you don't like isn't a good answer. Josh (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
in terms of biology (& anthropology for that matter), which is the main purpose of most of these categories, "male" & "female" are FAR more precise (& more neutral language). the arguement about eliminating by-age cats is frankly STUPID: 1. because NOT ALL FILES on a topic would be visual images. 2. there are MORE STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT than just "child" & "adult", & 3. for purposes of human biology, anthropology, etc. there is OBVIOUS usefulness for categories of human - by age/stage of development. Lx 121 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
If I generalize my proposal to all activities limited to specific age groups, the generalized proposal will be as follows:
  • If the activity is restricted to children, the main category should be called "children <activity>" with boys and girls as subcats.
    •
  • If the activity is restricted to adults, the main category should be called "people <activity>" with men and women as subcats.
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I no longer support my proposal. Instead, I support Joshbaumgartner's options 1 and 2. See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Male humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I put the cart before the horse by proposing outcomes, and it is best to first answer the basic question that prompted me to create this CfD in the first place:

When dealing with a topic for which no contents of children are expected/permitted, should we:

  • A: Simply use the basic 'people' categories without diffusion by adult/child, which is the best implementation of the Simplicity Principle, but may give the false impression that depictions of children are permitted.
  • B: Specifically use 'adult' categories, despite the lack of analogous 'child' categories, which is the best implementation of the Selectivity Principle, in that it is clear that depictions of children are not permitted.

@Sbb1413 and Omphalographer: perhaps we can start with answering this and circle back to the detail level once we have a clear overall picture? Josh (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Option B seems to be a good choice considering pedophilia is a crime worldwide. But we shouldn't be the authority to determine if pedophilic media are allowed or not. If we have such media, we can recreate Category:People performing sexual activity to categorize them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413 If by we you mean CfD participants, I agree. My proposal was not made to create such a prohibition, but instead to create an appropriate structure for topics within which such a prohibition is already policy. "We" as the Commons community certainly do need to have a clear policy on this. WMF is a US-based organization and must comply with US law regarding content, and content which violates US law is automatically out of scope and in fact uploading such files is a basic terms of use violation. Since the project is international in scope, we should be clear about those few areas where US law may force us to prohibit content which may otherwise not have violated our policies, especially since US and international law and custom often diverge. Of course, you are correct that if it is deemed permissible, then of course the normal people structure including adult/child diffusion can be implemented, though in this specific case, I would not lend a hand to curating such content. Josh (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 and Omphalographer: : I am seeing no opposition to B, which would result in the following structure for this topic:

If at some point we have media of other age groups that belong here (change of law/policy in the future), they can be implemented at that time, but for now this will do the job. Any objections? Josh (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Agreed to this proposal, as only adults are legally allowed to perform sexual activities worldwide. Pre-marital sexuality is criminalized in some countries, but that's a different matter. But pre-adulthood sexuality is often labelled as "pedophilia" or "child sexual abuse" and is considered crime. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: As an aside, your claim that only adults are legally allowed to perform sexual activities worldwide is very much an exaggeration; many jurisdictions (including the one I live in) allow certain minors to perform sexual activities and some jurisdictions even allow those activities to be recorded under certain conditions (generally when everyone involved is of a similar age).
The real point is that the Wikimedia Foundation Combating Online Child Exploitation Policy pretty much prohibits anything that would be in this category when it involves minors. Brianjd (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
The situation with this category is clear: if a file would belong in this category and involves a minor, then the file itself is prohibited.
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude teenagers mentions subcategories like Nude adolescent boys with flaccid penis and Nude standing adolescent boys with unshaved genitalia, where the situation is slightly less clear: there seems to be strong support for prohibiting such categories, but not necessarily the files that would otherwise belong in them.
As already mentioned there, it is important to set up the categorization system as a whole to avoid any suggestion that such categories should be re-created. Applying that principle here, categories such as People performing sexual activity must be deleted or renamed (maybe with a redirect, as suggested at the other discussion by Sbb1413) accordingly, leading to proposal B.
(On a related note, the category tree should also include a category like Adult humans performing sexual activity by gender.) Brianjd (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually, at the other discussion, Sbb1413 suggested another option: redirect the ‘people’ category to the corresponding ‘adult human’ category. Brianjd (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support Option B, moving away from my notional option C. I see why "adult humans" should be used instead of "people" in the main category of sexual activity performance, as the use of "adult humans" can better indicate our policy that minors (i.e. "children") are prohibited here. I'm pinging other users regarding this.​​​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Continuing with the idea that we need to make the ‘adults-only’ rule clear at every level, can we change the infobox so that the ‘Human stages of development’ section displays only the adult stages in adults-only categories? Brianjd (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
As another aside, this category tree seems to mix up ‘people’ and ‘humans’ a lot, with no obvious solution. Brianjd (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE - on multiple grounds.

1. - these categories are primarily about HUMAN BIOLOGY & anthropology in general. renaming them to "people" not only "dumbs it down" (which is NOT a wmc policy), it ALSO fails as ambiguous & impreciseterminology. WMC POLICY on categorisation clearly states that clarity & disambiguation are the priorities. viz. - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle (AND we literally debated & settled these issues YEARS AGO, mostly when these basic categories were created).

even within commons scope there are ENDLESS possibilities for ""NON-HUMAN PERSONS"; from anime/manga, (furies?,) fiction, hypothetical extraterrestrials, legal entities, animal rights, etc..... from anime/manga, (furries?,) fiction, hypothetical extraterrestrials, legal entities, animal rights, etc....

NONE OF WHICH belong in human biology/anthropology categories.

2. - WMC already has VERY clear policies on child porn, etc. ALL OF WHICH were debated discussed & agreed on long ago. this is a "moral panic" over an issue that was settled before most of the users in this discussion even started on wmc.

& in fact there are historic images of naked humans under the age of 18, which ARE both LEGAL & permitted for use by wwmc & the wmf. (although for "sexual activity involving minors" it would be mostly limited to things like mythology, history, & fiction. ganymede comes to mind as a very obvious example...) AS WELL AS other types of media files that would conceivably fall into these categories; graphs, text, records of conversations, etc.

tl,dr - IF you feel the need to re-organise the category schema for this area of commons then: 1. - it MUST SPECIFY as "human" to DISAMBIGUATE from the many other conceptions of "people/persons" real & fictional. & 2. - there are in fact SOME legitimate materials & subjects/topics that would fall into categories of "humans under 18 engaged in sexual activities" (like mythology, fiction, history, & real world human interactions, adolescent sexuality, criminal sexual activities, etc.) NOT ALL OF WHICH would be "in situ" visual imagery; i.e.: graphs, texts, records of conversations, crime reports, assorted medical records, etc.

AND we need to keep the age categorisations; & NOT JUST "child/adult"; but by stages of human development. i.e.: youth, adult, senior (then subdivisions of same).

Lx 121 (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sons (offspring)

Needless disambiguator, Category:Sons redirects to this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There is an explanation at Category_talk:Sons_(offspring). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but why Category:Sons redirect to this category? It should be a dab page, according to the discussions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned, no others have files? It assures that "sons" isn't used for "sounds". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • There are other uses at en:Sons (disambiguation) but none look significant and many would probably not have any or many files here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    So either covert base name to DAB or move this to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Andeloseko museoa

I see no currency for this name. I propose a move to the English-language Category:Andelos Archaeological Museum, or at least the Euskara (Basque) or possibly Category:Andeloseko Museo Arkeologikoa, using a name that has some currency. Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the name in English should be "Archaeological Museum of Andelos", because Andelos is the name of the ancient roman period city, not the name of the museum. We may change Andeloseko museoa into "Archaeological Museum of Andelos" and Yacimiento de Andelos‎ into "Archaeological Site of Andelos" Suna no onna (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Suna no onna: Sorry, I see I didn't put in a specific English-language name when I wrote this. [Later: well, I did, somehow the comment was messed up. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)] I meant to propose Category:Andelos Archaeological Museum per https://www.spain.info/en/places-of-interest/andelos-archaeological-museum/ and https://whichmuseum.com/museum/andelos-archaeological-museum-mendigorria-35830, though Category:Archaeological Museum of Andelos would be acceptable, used at https://visitnavarra.info/visitnavarra/en/ruinas-romanas-de-andelos/, https://www.turismoruralnavarra.com/en/listado/ciudad-romana-de-andelos-2/. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
On the official tourism website of the Government of Navarre, you can see "Andelosko Museo Arkeologikoa" Suna no onna (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no doubt that is the Euskara name, I gave that above. I would favor an English-language name here. Are you saying you favor Euskara and, if so, why? - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Residential buildings

There was a discussion on this category 12 years ago at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/07/Category:Residential buildings. The nominator Ghouston closed the discussion without any consensus. There are still problems with categories like Category:Residential buildings and Category:Housing, and their relations with Category:Accommodation buildings and Category:Accommodations respectively. I had created Category:Residences in line with the Category:Accommodation buildings/Category:Accommodations distinction. Old and new users should discuss on this matter. Pinging @Skeezix1000: as they were the only other participant in the old discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So what exactly is your question? Or do you have a proposal? How would you like to have the category structure? JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kindergarten in England

none of them are called kindergartens. They are called nurseries. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

 Keep the name as it is, per the Universality Principle. You can add a description using {{En-gb}} to mention that the items listed in this category are called "nurseries" in England, although they function as kindergartens. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There are several definitions of the term wikt:nursery, some of which are also mentioned at Category:Nurseries. The use of the term "nursery" to mean kindergarten is specific to the UK, so there's no need to rename this category to "nurseries in England". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: After looking through the subcats of Category:Early childhood education, I have found four types of early childhood education institutions:
These categories should be fixed in order to determine whether we can rename the nominated category to "nusery schools". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I think in the UK these are much the same thing. They arent different types, at least not these days. So they probably need to be merged as far as the UK is concerned. The regime is largely defined by Ofsted. I guess things will be different in other countries, and we may need to have different parent categories for different countries if we think the regimes are significantly different. Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes: these categories need good descriptions, mentioning their differences, anyway:
  1. what is the goal of the term (for example: just childcare during the parents' working hours, or teaching little children something, like being sociable, learning the language better, prepare for primary school);
  2. for what age are the terms: babies, toddlers, age 4-6, or whatever.
Though there might be a lot of differences around the world, perhaps we can create a category structures that will fit to a lot of countries. JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Preschools. Can we merge both? --JopkeB (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think in the UK there are really no differences corresponding to these categories. The names are just branding. These days they are all usually called nurseries for official purposes- though that is really rather too ambiguous to be used as a category. As far as I know they generally take children from birth to 4 or 5. There is structured play, but not teaching. So any of these terms could be used, but I think we should use the same term for all of them. I dont know what happens in other countries, because these things have to relate to the schools. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep Nursery school categories There are assertions made above with no evidence and no obvious basis in truth. I was invited here after restoring Category:Nursery schools in the United Kingdom to an article about the under-5 part of a bona fide; educational establishment; a nursery school. It is not a "Child day care centre". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy for all the UK articles to be under Nursery schools. What I dont want is numerous categories for what is essentially the same sort of establishments. Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
They are not "essentially the same". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Evidence of that? In UK they are all regulated by Ofsted to the same criteria, and subsidised by the government. They all have to provide childcare during working hours, and teach little children being sociable, learning the language better, and prepare for primary school Different titles are just branding. They all run from birth to 5. Maybe that is not true in other countries, so we may need to do different countries differently. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Now Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Preschools has been closed, can this one also be closed? --JopkeB (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Constructions

What's the difference between Category:Construction and Category:Constructions? I think Category:Construction is for the subfield of civil engineering, while Category:Constructions is for individual instances of construction. If so, their parent categories should be rectified. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know:
  • Construction (without the s) is for the proces of building a structure.
  • Constructions (with a s) is for how a structure, or part of it, is (exactly) put together.
But I am not a civil engineer. JopkeB (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@JopkeB: Although I'm an engineering student, I don't study civil engineering. There are two Wikidata items on construction (construction (Q385378) and construction (Q3875186)). The first one is the "economic activity that consists of the building or assembling of a building or infrastructure", and the second one is the "process of the building or assembling of a building or infrastructure". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Then I guess there are at least two meanings of the word "Construction" (without the s):
JopkeB (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nude women with masks

Should nude people wearing masks be considered partially nude? If so, this category should be renamed to Category:Partially nude women with masks. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Joshbaumgartner since he has worked on nudity-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: Re-pinging you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nude people with hats

Should nude people wearing hats be considered partially nude? If so, then merge Category:Nude people with hats and Category:Nude or partially nude people with hats to Category:Partially nude people with hats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Joshbaumgartner since he has worked on nudity-related categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413 This is a fair question, and I think this is part of the broader discussion currently happening at Commons:Nudity. Our exact definition of what is a depiction of nudity is ill-defined currently, and that discussion aims to refine that definition. I think this particular CfD will be answered by that conclusion, so I would hope that conversation can remain focused there for now. We can of course revisit this specific instance if that is not the case. I do think the question of whether things such as hats, gloves, shoes, etc. are clothing in so far as determining nudity state is an important detail that I will look to include in the results of the current discussion. Josh (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand: if it's nude, it's not "partially nude". It's like if you ask: should we say that "full" is considered "half full"? This is nonsense! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Structure of the Earth

Shouldn't this be moved to Internal structure of Earth? It is linked to that Wikidata item / Wikipedia article. Alternatively, a new subcategory could be created and then the Wikidata item be linked from there. Moreover, the categories also need checking – for example not all of these are "Tectonics diagrams" so this cat would need to be moved to some subcategory. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
 Support, except that Category:Earth's atmosphere would have to be moved elsewhere. Not only is it not internal, but it isn't technically part of the Earth. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Good point but afaik it's technically part of the Earth. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Interior

What is the difference between this cat and its subcat Oursana (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea. Merge. JopkeB (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems to be a deliberate choice by @Warburg1866 Enhancing999 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Most files I merged into Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Interior - Historic, the rest 20 files > to this cat.
So this is solvedOursana (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I thought "historic [images]" is being retired.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sculpturing

Isn't the word "Sculpting"? Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Weak keep — Both words are attested in Dictionary.com (sculpt and sculpture (verb)), with similar definitions. Same for Wiktionary (wikt:sculpting and wikt:sculpturing). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Google shows 216,000,000 hits for "sculpting" vs. 1,620,000 for "sculpturing". That is more than a 100-to-1 ratio. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: So we have to rename the main category as well as the 37 "by country" subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I think so.
Probably a different admin (not me) should make a final determination here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
37?! Gosh, you only have to erase two letters. 186.174.179.47 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean you have to delete the two letters from all 37 categories under Category:Sculpturing by country. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not that it's difficult. We don't have a mass rename tool for categories, but it can probably get done in 15 minutes or so. The only reason I am not closing it myself is that Sbb1413 seems at least slightly skeptical on whether this is desirable, and as the person who nominated it for the move I am literally the last admin who should make a determination here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a bit more complicated than just what variant form of the term we should use. Neither is ideal, really, since sculpting is the activity, sculpture is the art form and the category is obviously intended for both. Compare Category:Painting, which also combines the art form and the activity, but the -ing form is used for both. Its subcategories Category:Paintings and Category:People painting become Category:Sculptures and Category:People sculpting in the case at hand, illustrating the distinction.

I think it's rather telling that Category:Painting is in both Category:Visual arts by genre and Category:Art-related activities, whereas Category:Sculpturing only makes sense in the latter. Sculpture only seems to be categorized as visual art indirectly, since Category:Sculptures is found in Category:Visual works. That's not ideal, either.

I would suggest Category:Sculpture as the main category here rather than "Sculpt(ur)ing," which should be used in Category:People sculpting for Category:Sculptors at work and activity-related media. Sinigh (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Things would still have to change in Category:Sculpturing by country. There are many "Sculptures" categories there, and I assume they should instead conform to this tree structure:
Sculptures by country
Sculptures of [country]
Sculptures in [country]
Sinigh (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I would support Category:Sculpture as a {{Catcat}} as the top of the hierarchy.
I am still emphatic that "sculpting" is two orders of magnitude more commons a word than "sculpturing," and we should use it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
 Agree! Sinigh (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: looks like at the moment you are the only one not absolutely in consensus here. Are you OK with where the rest of us have landed? - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I had not specifically opposed the proposal, simply citing the potential impracticality over such changes. I'm okay with with "sculpting" though. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Drinking fountains for horses in England

should merge with Category:Horse troughs in England Rathfelder (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Drinking fountains for horses in the United Kingdom

should merge with Category:Horse troughs in the United Kingdom Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Đường Kách Mệnh

How does this differ from Category:The Revolutionary Road? Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Aliran Penghayat Kepercayaan terhadap Tuhan Yang Maha Esa

Qué dice? 186.173.183.246 12:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

all files are also in Category:Paguyuban Ngolah Rasa Tri Soka. I guess this can be deleted as redundant.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Elderly

What's the difference between this category and Category:Old people? Split it between Category:Old people and Category:Human old age. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have created Category:Human old age to cover the general concept of "old age" in human life, so that Category:Old people can be used specifically for old individuals. I think Category:Elderly is already covering what Category:Human old age is supposed to cover, but with a misleading name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Johnny Cash Music

What is the scope of this category? Why is "Music" capitalized (is "Johnny Cash Music" a proper noun)? Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Centuries by country

Is "by country" here referring to current countries, the countries of that time, or both? This question is similar to the one raised on the CFD of Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Both, but only if applicable.
Going by examples: Category:Poland in the 16th century BC clearly refers to the current extent: such categories are all about archeological artifacts etc. As Poland did not exist back then, our modern arbitrary borders are mostly to distinguish one prehistoric region from the other.
On the contrary, Category:Strasbourg in the 16th century is currently only part of Category:France in the 16th century. I would argue that Strasbourg (as a main German book publishing center and large Free Imperial City of the HRE) should also belong to Category:Germany in the 16th century as well. Similar cases apply to Wroclaw, Istanbul, Lviv, Los Angeles, Valletta...
Another case is Category:United Kingdom in the 10th century, which looks at first like a clear case of the first example. As the UK did not exist back then, I would prefer to use that category as the container for the contemporary countries: Category:England in the 10th century, Wales etc. I would also argue that if we go back even further, we should rather apply Category:Roman Britain in the 3rd century etc.
As a result I'd favor to categorize into both: Contemporary (if applicable) AND current countries, although like UK+England, cont. and curr. may be child-nodes of each other instead of sibling-nodes like France+Germany. In many other cases the contemporary countries are extinct and may not even have a category: I see no need to slavishly reproduce "centuries by <historic country>", unless there is enough content and need: that is what I mean with "if applicable". --Enyavar (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed with Enyavar that it is both, if they are applicable. Josh (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enyavar and Joshbaumgartner: Category:1871 in Pakistan redirects to Category:1871 in India, since Pakistan didn't exist back then and the area was part of India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
If it were just one case, I would suggest just changing it without much ado, but looking at Category:Pakistan in the 1860s up to the 1940s, this appears to be purposefully created by that IP. --Enyavar (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (PS: If my opinion was asked here, I'd disagree with the reasoning, because the country of India also didn't exist back then: the British Raj did.)

One other case which Enyavar didn't mention: Finland in the 1540s is categorized under Sweden, while Finland in the 1820s is categorized under Russia. --Orijentolog (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's only a different case than Strasbourg/Alsace because Alsace never gained independece from it's two neighbor countries. I wasn't aware of Finland's categorization as you mention it here, but historically it makes sense. I could also name you Occitany, Illyria, Dalmatia, Silesia, Saxony, Moravia, Galicia, Pomerania, Wallachia, as some other historical countries/regions that are not nations today but could have been. They are historical territories, though. Finland is one such territory that gained independence, but until the 1920s it was part of the Swedish and later Russian empires. I don't see anything wrong with applying the historical correct categories to that content: "Category:Moravia in the 17th century" is legit, although it should have more than just a single file. As it is, people purposefully categorize stuff in the way it makes sense to them, and the results are the categories as we currently find them. If regions have consistent historical names, we should use these names, and that means to categorize with both the contemporary and the current nations that a region is/was part of. This is not a perfect system as it runs into various challenges with pre-colonial Africa+America (see the "16th-century USA"-CfD that was mentioned in the OP) or with ancient+classic Eurasia; but I can't see how we would be able to solve these challenges in a top-down approach. --Enyavar (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Milad Zare

Who (?) ... 186.174.147.166 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rahila Hajibababeyova

For the reason that the same Category:Rəhilə Hacıbababəyova exists. Yousiphh (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that the main category should be in English one as the common language of Commons is English and we can redirect from Azeri version. Interfase (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Do Azerbaijani people have English names? Interesting... Make it a redirect. 200.39.139.16 16:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It is not an English name. It is Azeri name with English transliteration because Commons is in English, not in Azerbaijani. When the language of Wikimedia Commons become Azerbaijani then we can have redirect from Rahila Hajibababeyova to Rəhilə Hacıbababəyova. For example category about Ilham Aliyev is Ilham Aliyev not İlham Əliyev. Interfase (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought that was only for other alphabets. Is this not the Latin Alphabet? Make it the Azerbaijani way. 200.39.139.16 15:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Payroll

What is the difference between Category:Payroll and Category:Paychecks? If no objection, I'd like to categorize the latter to the former (Paychecks as the subcategory of Payroll).--125.230.82.211 22:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Government institutions

redirect to speedy deleted category Category:Institutions of government should be either deleted or redirected to appropriated existing category Robby (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Robby: What happened to Category:Institutions of government? Why it was deleted outright? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I have no additional information to this line from the deletion logs:
2024-06-30T12:09:03 Yann talk contribs deleted page Category:Institutions of government (per COM:SPEEDY)
best regards Robby (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Robby: I understand the reason. The category is redundant to Category:Government organizations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I've now redirected this category to Category:Government organizations and this discussion can be closed. Robby (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Veterinary hospitals

Should merge into Category:Veterinary clinics. No significant difference between the terms. Rathfelder (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Verterinary hospitals can do more than other veterinary facilities. They can do more-complex surgeries, whereas some clinics can't. It's like the difference between a doctor's office and a hospital for humans. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth

The name is quite strange, IMO "Milky Way Galaxy by country" is better, and put the rest of the image to the parent category (or if necessary, create another category with a better name) A1Cafel (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The category is named that way because these images are specifically about showing some place and the Milky Way instead of e.g. only the Milky Way or the Milky Way and a negligible part of some place. If renaming it, the proper name would be Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth by country. By the way, I think it would be much more sense to organize these by subject like Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a body of water on Earth, Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a city/buildings/..., etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose It is not as if the the current categories are overcrowded. But if anyone wants to create further subcategories, they can figure out what subcategories would be useful (i.e. have more than a couple of images in them). Krok6kola (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand why keeping this cat, but the name is really strange, why not we change it to "Milky Way Galaxy seen from the Earth" or something else? --A1Cafel (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
It is really tricky to come up with a good name for this category since almost all of the photos are "seen from Earth", even the ones that shows only the Milky Way and no earthly subject. Perhaps we should try to figure out a name for a category that shows only the Milky Way instead/too(?), like "Milky Way Galaxy (celestial only)". Originally thought of "(stars only)" here, but then someone would surely object that there are other celestial bodies in the Milky Way even if we can't see them.
When I created the category, I thought of many names that would sound more scholar-like, but I settled for this since it was uncomplicated. We could rename it "Milky Way Galaxy and Earth-based locations" or "Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy", or something like this. Perhaps "Landscapes and objects with the Milky Way Galaxy, by country" could be a good compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
That's better than the current one. I would also accept this one. --A1Cafel (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an idea, we could take this one step further and make a new cat tree to incorporate another idea mentioned above by Prototyperspective. Like this:

 Comment A1Cafel, at the time, it was just a way to create some sort of order for all the Milky Way photos that were just thrown into one big pile in the main category, regardless of where they were taken or if they showed a bit of Earth or just sky. Later, the categories 'by country' were created and with that a new and better name would now be in order. As with all big cleanups, you got to start somewhere. ;-) Now we can fine-tune this. Best, --Cart (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose "Milky Way Galaxy by country" seems to imply there are different parts of the Galaxy, in each country. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: If you look at the actual category names, e.g. Category:Milky Way Galaxy over Russia, Category:Milky Way Galaxy over Indonesia etc. there is no implication that "there are different parts of the Galaxy" in each country. Krok6kola (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The proposed rename above isn't for the subcategories, but the parent. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by subject

People have been using this category despite the redirect, and I kind of understand why. Is Category:Photographs by topic really the intuitive terminology here? Isn't subject the appropriate term for what's in a photo?

Despite its name, Category:Photography by subject seems to be the category where photographs are actually organized by topic, if you ask me.

Inviting MB-one and Blackcat, who created and redirected this category, respectively. Sinigh (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

One should rather fix the subcategories added by templates (or the templates). Everything else gets moved on automatically. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sinigh: it's not the category that's wrong, is a problem the user that categorizes erroneusly in conscious matter. -- Blackcat 18:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
PS and possibly avoid using crappy templates like DMC, there's Metacat which does excellently the job.
@Sinigh I'd argue, that topic and subject are not exactly the same when it comes to photographs. Thus both categories (including subcategories) should be separated. MB-one (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@MB-one: I think so too. Category:Animal photography refers to a topic, while Category:Photographs of animals refers to subjects, right? Sinigh (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sinigh Yes, that's what I meant. MB-one (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the 15 photographs in Category:Animal photography could easily be in Category:Photographs of animals or just Category:animals. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
True, they don't belong at this end of the category tree. Sinigh (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Partially nude chained male humans

Do we really need this? We have Category:Partially nude chained men. Are we going to have a Category:Partially nude chained boys? Otherwise, this (currently parentless) category is completely redundant. Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Hold for now. I need to look at whether "men" or "male humans" should be the main category for male humans. Same for "women" and "female humans". Also, the term "humans" should be replaced with "people", for which I'm opening a new CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: are you willing to take responsibility for doing something reasonably soon with this (currently parentless) category? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hillview Park & Cafe

Clearly Category:Hillview Park & Cafe and Category:Hillview Park And Cafe are the same thing and should be merged. I believe that by Commons' usual conventions, the correct name would be Category:Hillview Park and Cafe (note the lowercase 'a' in "and"). Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment Yes, the two places are the same, but the category should be named "Hillview Park & Cafe," reflecting the name on the main gate, as it is the official place name. —MdsShakil (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mixed education

Not a useful category. Vast majority of schools are mixed. Those which arent are in Category:Single-gender schools Rathfelder (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

On the French (here), English (here) and Dutch (here) Wiki there is also a category dedicated to it!? Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 13:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of the topic, and illustration of it, is not a problem. But do we want to categorise many thousands of pictures of individual schools here? Rathfelder (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
There are also thousands of streets, people, canals, churches, buildings, etc.! Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course, but is it not sufficient to categorise only the single gender schools in that way? Rathfelder (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Single gender schools are exceptional and have a good reason to be categorized under category schools. This one is probably not necessary and confusing. 200.39.139.20 16:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment You could just not use the category when it's not useful (e.g. England in 2025) ? Enhancing999 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
 Delete Delete useless "Category:Mixed education". Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do you consider it useless?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Equally sane as for example "Category:Rabbits with two eyes". Taylor 49 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know they used to have three eyes.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
You are not funny, but ridiculous. 200.39.139.20 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Norfolk, England by century

I don't think this works grammatically. "Towns in Norfolk, England by century" reads like two disjointed half sentences. This is "Norfolk by century", but Norfolk is disambiguated with ", England". So it should be "Norfolk, England, by century", and "Norfolk, England, in the 20th century" etc. Like with brackets, after the disambiguation term is over, there should be a second comma. The second comma is probably missing to satisfy the templates that are only programmed to have the first comma.

  • First solution: What if the templates are reconfigured to also allow for the second comma?
  • Second solution: What if we disamibguate with brackets, given how brackets always come in pairs? Enyavar (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
 Support the first solution in this case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment The second solution is a standard one. The problem with the first solution is that it wouldn't just concern this category or a template you may have in mind. I think way too many categories and other would need to be changed. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Since option one is really about changing Template:Place by century, I placed a note on the template talk page. I don't see the purpose of this. Category structures are meant to be structures, not proper English naming conventions. The first solution may require thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) of category changes (I assume also decades and years) for consistency and because it would throw off all the parent category orders with the comma ones showing up before the ones without them. For the second solution, what is the alternative? Category:Norfolk is a disambiguation with Category:Norfolk, England as the parent. Are you suggesting Category:Norfolk (England)? This seems entirely unnecessary for a grammatical concern which I assume isn't related to actual confusion about what is being talked about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ohyamato-jinja

Should be called Oyamato-jinja Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Coffee shops in Wales

Are these distinct from Category:Cafés in Wales? Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Yes, see Category:Cafés:
Place here files relating to establishments serving coffee and other drinks and food for consumption.
  • For files relating to shops selling coffee beans or ground coffee where coffee is not normally consumed on the premises, see "Category:Coffee shops".
--Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mobile medicine

shouldn't Category:Mobile health units be in that category? is this category named properly as it has no WP article? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Linking

the category contains mostly files that aren't about hyperlinks, does not include many hyperlink files like File:Hyperlink example.svg and yet it's only category is Category:HTML. What should be done here? I was thinking of redirecting Category:Hyperlinks to it but maybe that should become a subcategory and the HTML cat be moved to it? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Concert in Togo

This category appears to be about one particular concert, and should be renamed accordingly; also needs parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fabrication du charbon écologique

I've ventured to place this under Category:Charcoal, which I think is what I see here, but (1) presumably the category name should be in English, given that it is not a proper noun or something specific to French and (2) "Ecologique" here seems more of a value judgement than an objective statement. Jmabel ! talk 04:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Indigenous peoples

The terms "Category:Indigenous peoples" and "Category:Tribes" have no universal definitions, and their corresponding Wikipedia articles make it clear ("Indigenous peoples" mentions the lack of a universal definition in the first sentence, while "tribe" does so in the third sentence). Any attempts to distinguish the two concepts are futile. In fact, the terms "indigenous" and "tribal" are treated synonymously in countries like Canada, India, and the US. So I prefer merging the two categories into one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Not all tribal societies are indigenous peoples and not all indigenous peoples have tribal structures. Maybe something should be done like renaming the category/ies but e.g. the WP article you linked has The convention also covers "tribal peoples" who are distinguished from Indigenous peoples and described as "tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: This is just one of the myriads of international definitions of "Indigenous peoples" and "tribe". Different definitions make contradictory distinctions between the two terms. At best, these terms convey primitive-like societies, as opposed to modern societies. I'm not saying such concepts are invalid. I'm saying that one category tree is enough to cover social groups that follow primitive-like societies.. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose In my perception, "tribes" is more about social structures or subgroups while "Indigenous peoples" is more about historical continuity. The Wikipedia article cited also gives definitions, for example the ILO working definition (ohchr.org) which clearly states differences between indigenous and tribal peoples. I suggest keeping the two distinct categories and maybe adding a definition to each of them. --Bücherfresser (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sci-fi films from Archive.org

Does it really make sense to organize these videos by genre by website from where they were imported from? They rather should be organized by genre in Category:Science fiction films videos which makes this cat redudant (see also DR below). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If it matches a planned import, why not. We do have "women" from "CH-NB". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
To answer your question because it is not useful, a flawed way to categorize things, in general can result in films being categorized there and then removed from the category above per COM:OVERCAT and missing in more reasonable cats, causes unnecessary workload, and is misleading/a problem by not including many films that match the category title/scope. Don't understand your second sentence. Categories should make sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It just means that OVERCAT is applied in a flawed way.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
This ignores all the other points and picks one. Considering the overcat issue: that is applying that guidelines exactly as it's specified...that's not flawed and the only cases where files are not missing in the cat above is when people didn't implement that guideline so far in that cat. It doesn't make sense to organize films by source where the files have been imported from by genre and only causes issues like the ones mentioned such as sidestepping a proper scifi films videos cat or burying files by the irrelevant criteria of the uploader's source location of the file. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The main problem is that it wasn't set as a source category, but as a topical category, generating the problems you mention in the topical tree. Source categories should be ignored when building the topical tree.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Source categories are not subcategorized by genre or are they? If they are it doesn't seem reasonable and doesn't change how this very incomplete cat is shown and found in Category:Science fiction films. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Comedy films from Archive.org

Does it really make sense to organize these videos by genre by website from where they were imported from? They rather should be organized by genre in Category:Comedy films videos which makes this cat redudant (see also DR above). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Veterinary medicine in the United Kingdom

Template gives the wrong categories Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hitchhiking

Although the Wikipedia's article explains that hitchhikers extends their arm towards the road with the thumb of the closed hand pointing upward; not everyone does. Some hitchhikers may hold their signs to catch a ride on the roadside. As far as I know, some hitchhikers don't know about "hitchhiking", their hand gestures like flagging down a bus or taxi. That is to say, they are raise hand high and waving, or extends their arm towards the road then palms down and waving, but there is currently no such photo on the Commons Wikipedia. Based on above, it appears they are not necessarily limited to a specific hand gesture.

Regardless of the hand gesture, hitchhikers are indeed "beckoning" to passing vehicles on the road. It's just that I saw User:Infrogmation reverted my edits (see: 1, 2), without providing an explanation in the edit summary, it may become increasingly difficult for editors to improve the Commons Wikipedia. I don't wish to have any dispute, so I bring it here for discussion as this should be resolved rather than turned into an edit war. If there is a dispute about whether "Hitchhiking" should be included in the "Beckoning" category, feel free to discuss here.--125.230.72.36 11:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO "Category:Beckoning" doesn't belong on Category:Hitchhiking since it is not an essential part of Hitchhiking. The essential part is getting a ride. Yes I'm familiar that the thumb gesture is not universally used (at least it wasn't in the parts of Mexico and Central America of my youth decades ago), and some people simply wave to passing vehicles. However other manners of getting rides don't involve beckoning - for example simply verbally asking for rides, for example at cross roads, petrol stations, or other places where vehicles stop. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Certainly should not have parent category "beckoning". Speaking here as someone who hitchhiked across the U.S. enough times that I lost count, plenty of times, you get rides just by talking with people at truck stops or rest stops; also, prior to the spate of people begging at freeway entrances, one of the most common ways to hitchhike was just to stand at a freeway entrance with a sign indicating your destination. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • As anon has made no counter-argument to Jmabel and my statements, I suggest this be closed with no further action needed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Overviews

Shouldn't this be merged to Category:Views from above‎ (or a related cat/subcat)? And if not isn't "Overviews" the wrong term for it? If it's not the right term, I think it should get brackets added that this is about the physical vantage point and the current title redirect to the new Category:Overview. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

In every subcategory it seems to mean something slightly different. Maybe similar things will end up in the new Category:Overview. I'd delete both or make them into a disambiguation. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, a disambiguation page seems needed and then the two pages would need to be moved to so far unclear new titles. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
A 3rd alternative, could be to make "overviews" a parent to the other choices of views. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Science and technology timelines

Split it into Category:Science timelines and Category:Technology timelines, per the CFD at Category talk:Science and technology. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Some files may be located in both of these when the science that is the subject of the timeline is about or culminates in technology. Medicine is often/usually also considered technology so one would have to think about how to categorize e.g. File:Development of lipid-lowering drugs.svg. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Terminalia catappa - Flowers

Redirect category with no inbound links —  Junglenut | talk  08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How do we know there are no inbound links? Even if there aren't, I don't see the harm in keeping this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Terminalia catappa flowers

Redirect category with no inbound links —  Junglenut | talk  08:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How do we know there are no inbound links? Even if there aren't, I don't see the harm in keeping this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:JSEG

Empty bot category, no clear purpose (User talk:DrTrigonBot#Category:JSEG) Nutshinou Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Internet Archive (90 degree rotation needed)

Misleading empty bot category (see explanation here), its counterpart Category:Internet Archive (270 degree rotation needed) was speedily deleted nearly a year ago for being unmaintained for years Nutshinou Talk! 10:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Keep there are 400,000 in the parent category. So an occasional rotation doesn't seem unlikely. Not sure what's misleading about it. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
It's misleading because it's expected that a bot would rotate the files, which was useful because it worked in conjunction with Category:Internet Archive (uncrop needed), but this hasn't been the case for 3 years now, so a few days ago I had to manually (with RotateLink) request a 90° rotation of the files (some of which were in the category for years). Keeping this category will only contribute to further confusion. Nutshinou Talk! 14:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it still does if you add {{Rotate}} (which generally works, but not always, there can be a significant delay). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes. That is what I've done, and what users should be doing instead of adding files to the category. If this category is kept, it then becomes another category that must be manually checked for no reason since another user will eventually have to request a rotation and then remove the category from the files, which is obviously not optimal (in this case this "other user" was me and "eventually" was 3 years) Nutshinou Talk! 20:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Just recalled that category. It's actually useful to have such a category even for tagging with {{Rotate}}. Too bad, I didn't remember the category when fixing dozens of IA files in about this. Selecting files on "visual file change" is much less convenient than just tagging an entire category.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Georgia Republican Party

moved to Category:Republican Party of Georgia (U.S. state) Mjrmtg (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I see where you're coming from, but the organization's official name is Georgia Republican Party , which is also the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page, Georgia Republican Party. It also creates confusion with the English name for a political party in the nation of Georgia, the Republican Party of Georgia. If you want a clarifier in the name, have it be Georgia Republican Party (United States). -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

? This seems already resolved, why your CdD? Anyway: needs disambiguation with Category:Republican Party of Georgia. --Enyavar (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Old category should be deleted or redirected. Mjrmtg (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@Mjrmtg: There is an option to move categories, which automatically redirects the old one to the new one. But why did you want to move this one? As Kreuz und quer points out, the name is Georgia Republican Party. I suggest we restore the original category title. Sinigh (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I saw Category:Republican Party of Florida and thought Georgia should follow that naming convention. Mjrmtg (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ysgyryd Fach

The same as Category:Skirrid Rathfelder (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

According to w:en:Skirrid Fawr they are not the same:
  • Skirrid Fawr is 486 metres (1,594 feet) high.
  • " The smaller hill of Ysgyryd Fach or "Little Skirrid" (270 metres or 890 feet) lies about 2 1⁄2 miles (4 kilometres) south."
So these two categories can not be merged. I propose to add clear descriptions to both categories, showing the difference between the two, and make sure that the Wikidata are correct. JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kosturčanki;

Is the semicolon really part of the category name? Also, this needs parent categories. Jmabel ! talk 22:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this @Jmabel. It's my mistake. I apologize. The semicolon should be removed. Thank you Forbidden History (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Forbidden History: good, but Category:Kosturčanki still needs parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I added few, hope it is ok. Forbidden History (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Making up a new parentless category Category:Macedonian Folklore as a parent doesn't really help matters at all. The idea is to give this category existing categories as ancestors, either directly or indirectly. Offhand, that category doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You say these people were Macedonian musicians and Macedonian revolutionaries. That is presumably what we need parent categories to express. Also, a quibble: as a category name, if we were to create on like that, it should certainly be Category:Macedonian folklore (lower-case "f"), not Category:Macedonian Folklore. - Jmabel ! talk 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Global city

There are myriads of definitions of global cities, so not suitable as a category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Keep as is for now. Your argument is one for disambiguation or subcategorization, not deletion. The lead of the linked WP articles states A global city, also known as a power city, world city, alpha city, or world center, is a city that serves as a primary node in the global economic network. The concept originates from geography and urban studies, based on the thesis that globalization has created a hierarchy of strategic geographic locations with varying degrees of influence over finance, trade, and culture worldwide. The global city represents the most complex and significant hub within the international system, characterized by links binding it to other cities that have direct, tangible effects on global socioeconomic affairs. The criteria of a global city vary depending on the source.. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
 Keep--Elekes Andor (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Buildings

Many "buildings in city" (or similar) categories have been used to categorize the photos that should belong to other dedicated categories (Category:Aerial photographs, Category:Skylines, or Category:Cityscapes), probably because they depict multiple buildings. I think cityscapes depicting multiple buildings should not belong to "buildings in city" categories, which should be reserved for individual buildings only. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that Category:Cityscapes is already placed under Category:Many buildings. I've also placed Category:Skylines under that category, since skylines are generally groups of multiple buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
 Strong oppose I disagree. Two or three buildings are obviously neither a "Cityscape" nor a "Skyline". Cityscape is defined as the equivalent to landscape which requires that multiple square kilometers of an area are visible. Additionally, there are not only cities as place of buildings but also towns or villages. Cityscape or Skyline doesn't fit well with towns or villages. Fl.schmitt (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the proposal here? Delete ? Merge ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: My proposal is to avoid cluttering the building categories with skylines and other cityscapes, which cover a lot of buildings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Fine. But how? By deleting this category? By merging it? By splitting it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: By redefining the scope of this category, so that it is clear that this category is for individual buildings, and not for skylines and other cityscapes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the plan to deal with all those skylines that are currently in the category that should no longer be in it once the scope is redefined? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Eventually photos get put into categories for individual buildings if and when they exist. Depending on the place, this is just more or less developed.
I don't see how or why one should exclude images featuring several objects from categories for such objects. There is Category:Buildings by quantity that attempts to count them.
Some categories for individual buildings have a notice that they should only include cityscapes with the building, but not photographs of only the building.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lumberjacks

How is this category (and the corresponding subcategories) different from Category:Loggers? To me, "lumberjacks" is just a more archaic term for the same profession. Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The en-WP article is en:Lumberjack, whereas en:Logger is a disambiguation page. There was a proposal to rename the article, which failed. —holly {chat} 07:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Holly Cheng: That seems neither here nor there, since we already have a Category:Loggers with exactly the same apparent meaning as Category:Lumberjacks (not a disambiguation). - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Then we soft redirect Loggers into Lumberjacks. It doesn't make sense to have the en-WP article at a significantly different title than the Commons category. (To be clear, I don't have a particular preference for which title is chosen; I just would like them to be consistent.) —holly {chat} 16:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum

The correct name is Category:Images from the Wereldmuseum Amsterdam. See also the website of the museum

The museum changed its name in 2023. All categories have been renamed, but this category has been reverted to its outdated name. So now an inconsistency exists within the Category:Wereldmuseum Amsterdam. The reason given for the revert is that the name change would be controversial and it should be discussed here.

I cannot find any source stating that the name change is controversial. There is a lot of controversy now regarding museums with colonial art. However the name change was done to get a consistent name for four museums: Wereldmuseum Amsterdam, Wereldmuseum Rotterdam, Wereldmuseum Leiden and Wereldmuseum Berg en Dal. A67-A67 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agrree with A67-A67. Could Multichill please explain us, in what this rename is controversial? Gürbetaler (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
As you can see at the top of Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum, this category tracks files which have {{KIT-license}}. That release only covers specific files. By just renaming the category and not doing any changes in the template, stuff broke. We also have long term file usage statistics on this, that would break too. So this isn't a simple change.
So we probably need to make a new category for the 2009 image release (Category:Images from the Tropenmuseum 2009 release?) and point the template to that one. It's 15 years ago so that's a bit of a puzzle. Multichill (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Vehicles by color by country

I can kind of see the merits of there being a categories for vehicles by color based on the country, although it's a little obtuse to begin with, but looking at some of the sub-categories they seem to go down to the level of regions and cities in same cases. Which just seems totally pointless and pedantic. Even more so because some of the categories are also based on the type of vehicle. For instance Category:Tricolor trucks in Kraków, which contains the extremely over precise child category Category:Black, green, yellow trucks in Kraków‎. Although apparently there's also Category:Black, green, yellow trucks in Poland. So I can kind of understand it, but I think organizing images of multicolor vehicles (or even single colored ones) at the city level is overly perfectionistic and serves no actual purpose. So I think the "vehicles by color by city" categories should be gotten rid. If not also the country level categories depending on how useful they are. Especially in cases where the vehicles (as well as the categories) involve more then one color. Thoughts? Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Agree totally pointless and not helpful. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Dijital Kültürel Miras Ağı-2024 Kent Buluşmaları

The 3 parent categories for individual dates should probably be subcategories. The category also lacks an English description, so I hestitate to change it. The 3 other categories are currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:DOCUMERICA photographers

Shall we keep this? it's currently on Commons:Report_Special:UncategorizedCategories as parent categories have been removed. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Ooligan (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:WikiCan Yamoussoukro

it would be good to have a category description. The subcategories may not be suitable/specifically about this topic. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08/Category:EKLÔ_CAN helps here too, I added similar parent categories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Former sanatoriums

As far as I can see none of the Category:Sanatoriums are still operating. They are all Former sanitoriums, so this category is redundant. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Czech Republic

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Products of the Czech Republic.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Czech Republic.

Although there's no consensus to change the change the name of this country category at previous discussions, we still have a mix of "Czechia"/"Czech Republic" throughout Commons. While I don't want to rename this category to "Czechia" or something, I want to restrict the scope of this category to the current republic. The Czech region before the republic and the current republic should come under an umbrella category, which can be named either "Czechia" (from the suggestion of ŠJů) or the "Czech lands" (from Wikipedia's history of the Czech lands). The Czech name for the region will be "Česko". I'll present the tabular proposal soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The tabular proposal is as follows:

Czech region (Česko) proposal
Czechia (Option A) Czech lands (Option B)
Category:Czechia Category:Czech lands (currently Category:Historical Czech lands)

(btw, my interest in Czechia/Czech lands is partly due to Tomaš Bata, the founder of the Bata shoe company, which is very popular in India) --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging all the participants of previous discussions: @Themightyquill, Gryffindor, Wieralee, Palu, ŠJů, Juandev, Jklamo, Ragimiri, Jan.Kamenicek, Blackcat, Nyttend, Helveticus96, Joshbaumgartner, Joostik, Auntof6, Catrìona, Buidhe, Adamant1, and Enyavar: Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I would support either: they are both historically accurate and correct. Buidhe (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Before adding your comments here, remember that this is not one of the proposals to change the name of this category. The proposal is to restrict the scope of this category to the current republic, and to add a region category to the cover the Czech region before the republic. This is similar to the Bengal/Bangladesh dichotomy, where Category:Bangladesh covers the current republic, while Category:Bengal covers the region before the republic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per my comments in the previous discussion about it. Mainly I'm against any kind of splitting of categories because it's not really clear what areas or periods encompass the Czech lands and/or Czechia. Especially in the case of "Czechia." But in general you can't have category structures based on amorphous, nondistinct geographical areas that have no actual agreed on boundaries or concept of when the boundaries started and/or ended. It just doesn't work. At the end of the day everything should be named "of the Czech Republic." As that's the only region here that has an actual start date and a clearly defined boundary.
There's no legitimate reason we can't just have categories for things that happened or existed before the modern state of the Czech Republic in a category for the history of Czech Republic either. That's how we do it in literally every other instance. To give an example there is no "history of the Congo Lands" or whatever for things that existed before the modern country of the Congo and/or during the Belgium occupation of the area and it would be totally ridiculous to suggest we should have one. What's so special about the Czech Republic?
I don't think the comparison between Bangladesh and Bengal is really relevant to this either since those are widely and nationally recognized concepts. Whereas the whole idea of "the Czech Lands" seems to be a fringe concept created by a minority of nationalists that isn't even recognized by anyone or accepted anywhere. Which is why the Wikipedia article for it is barely referenced and the sources it has are extremely questionable. BTW, at least two of those sources and the article refer to it as "the Bohemian Lands" anyway. Not "the Czech Lands." Sure though, lets have a category for "the Czech Lands" when it doesn't even exist, no one recognizes it, and it isn't even called that to begin with because of Bangladesh and Bengal. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
As explained many times in previous discussions, "Czech Republic" never existed before 1969 as an entity, while Czechia is a timeless name of the country which can apply also retrospectively for the area. "Czech Republic" in category names is unusable because it is absurdly anarchic for items and subjects relating to the time before the establishment of this republic.
The problem with the instability or variability of the demarcation could concern all countries. Yet for most countries we have a category structure named after the timeless geographical name of the country, not the political name of the current power entity. It is a proven and widely used standard solution for category names and that is the reason why it should also be applied for Czechia. Its identity is relatively stable since the Middle Ages.
You can be right the the term "Czech Lands" is an ahistorical equivalent of "Bohemian Lands" which is the correct translation of "české země". The "Czech" identity appeared since the late 16th or early 17th century, when it is still not possible to talk about nationalism in the sense of the 19th century. "Czech Lands" can be distinguishing name for the core lands of the Bohemian crown where the Czech language is autochthonous, unlike Lusatias and most of Silesia which also belonged under Bohemian crown but never were Czech. --ŠJů (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
As already pointed out by Sbb1413 this discussion doesn't exist to rehash the whole "Czech Republic" versus "Czechia" thing. It's to decide on if there should be a category for "the Czech Lands" having to do with things before the modern state. I disagree with the crux of your argument though because there's plenty of "history of country X" categories that contain categories and images of things that existed before the modern area. What we don't do is create "lands of country X" categories.
Just to repeat what I said in my first comment, there's no reason media related to things that existed before the modern "Czech Republic" can't just be put in a "history of the Czech Republic" category. That's how we do it in literally every other instance. Otherwise be my guest and provide some evidence that we don't. Even if we did though, as I've said below it's not totally clear the whole "Czech Lands" thing is an actual concept to begin with anyway. Or again, you should provide some actual evidence outside of your personal opinion. Otherwise I think "history of Czech Republic" works perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
As explained many times in previous discussions, we should apply the same solution for Czechia as is consensually applied for all similar countries. I.e. to use a timeless non-political geograhic name of the country, because such a name can be applied retrospectively, while political names of specific republics or monarchies are very inappropriate for anachronistic use. Similarly, "History of Germany" makes more sense in retrospect than "History of the Bundesrepublic of Germany", because the concept of Germany can also be referred back to the period when Germany was not a unified state entity. And this despite the fact that we follow defaultly the today's territorial demarcation. It works fine for the vast majority of other countries, i.e. there is no reason why this standard should not be applied to Czechia as well.--ŠJů (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
And as has already been explained to you multiple times now there isn't a consensus to go with "Czechia" instead of "the Czech Republic" for the names of the categories. At least sounds like we agree that "Czech Lands" isn't appropriate though. So I guess "history of the Czech Republic" it is then. Again, just like how it is with every other country. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
We should have categories named "Czechia" for Czechia, and categories named "...Republic" for the specific republic, if needed. The key is to understand the difference between the two terms and to accept and apply the proven standards we use for other countries. Many people from Czechia have nothing to do with the Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
We can't do that because there's no consensus to use "Czechia" for categories to begin with and there's no difference between the terms anyway. Know where has the government of the Czech Republic or anyone else besides you said that "Czechia" only refers to the areas of the Czech Republic before the country was created. Your just making it up to push "Czechia" when there's no consensus to use it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
cs:České země (en:Czech lands, or better Bohemian Lands or Lands of the Bohemian Crown) is rather a historical term related to the monarchic period, especially before the Habsburg personal union with Austria (1526) and its later centralization to the Austrian Empire. It can also be used for the todays Czechia, but it carries with it a very strong emphasis on medieval origins, it is not an ordinary neutral timeless name of the country. An analogy to non-political geographical names of countries as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany, Italy, France, Russia etc. is unequivocally and only "Czechia" (Česko). Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on this. The term Czechia appears in the late 16th century in Latin and in the 19th century in English, it is surely not limited to the independent Czech Republic.
If there is appropriate to keep a specific category for the Czech Republic (in some topic), it should be a subcategory of the more general category for Czechia (as well as Category:Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938), Category:Czechoslovak Socialist Republic or Category:Czech and Slovak Federative Republic‎ etc. are subcategories of Category:Czechoslovakia via Category:History of Czechoslovakia). However, it is customary to establish such categories only for former state entities and are intended for very specific content only. Most current republics and monarchies do not have their own subcategory within their timeless country category. Even Q1991965 and Q3496079 as the previous two Czech power entities have not their specific Commons categories because they are factically identical with the current Czech Republic. --ŠJů (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Czech lands....is rather a historical term related to the monarchic period...Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on this. Can you provide sources to those "Geographers, linguists and political authorities" who agree that there was a historical area before the Czech Republic called "the Czech lands" and who detail exactly what that area is? Because I looked into it pretty extensively when there was the other discussion and couldn't find any references to it what-so-ever outside of Wikipedia and a couple of random books that don't seem to be authoritative or even agree with each other about it.
Even looking at the Wikipedia article for "Czech lands" it only has three references, two of which just contain images that have nothing to do with the article and the other isn't any better. There's also a Wikipedia article for "History of the Czech lands" but even there only 1 out of the 44 references in it refer to "the Czech Lands." The rest talk about other things like the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. Nothing really comes up on Google for "Czech Lands" either except Wikipedia and the aforementioned book either. So I'm really failing to see how this an actual concept outside of a badly referenced Wikipedia article. Let alone one that "Geographers, linguists and political authorities agree on." So where exactly are these "Geographers, linguists and political authorities" who agree it's a thing and discuss it? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
You are quoting falsely. That statement about the consensus of experts and politicians did not refer to the term "Czech lands" but to the word "Czechia", which is officially and consensually the only non-political geographical name of Czechia, analogous to the geographical names commonly used for all surrounding countries. The basis is to understand that photographs or personalities from the time before the establishment of the Czech Republic undoubtedly relate to Czechia, but it is inappropriate to categorize them under the Czech Republic. Until you understand the difference in meaning between the two expressions, we will not move forward in the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
As both I and Sbb1413 have already said we aren't here to discuss the whole "Czechia" thing. There aren't going to be categories called "Czechia" at this point. And I doubt the conversation is going to move forward until you get that and stop trying to highjack the conversation by making it about "Czechia" when that's not what it's about. Although I think your response does answer my question about "Czech lands." Clearly there's no evidence of it being a real thing or you'd just provide it instead of deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The proposal by Sbb1413 is to use "Czechia" categories as the standard country categories with standard name form and "Czechrepublican" categories reduce to specific categories for the specific political entity, similar to the specific categories for varoius forms and periods of Czechoslovak republics. This is quite a logical system concept that corresponds to Commons standards. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Sbb1413 can propose whatever they want. There was already no consensus in two other discussions to use "Czechia" for categories related to the Czech Republic. I disagree that the out of the prior two CfDs are worth ignoring simply because a single user thinks "The Czech" is anachronistic or whatever. At the end of the day there are still guidelines we have to follow and one of those are that category names can't be ambagious or refer to multiple topics.
In this case "Czechia" refers to both the modern country and historical areas. So it really doesn't make sense to just use it for the historical lands. Since again, that's not what it was created for or how it's used. It would also just create two competing categories because some people would use "history of the Czech Republic" while others would use "history of Czechia" since it's not really clear what exactly is "the Czech Republic" or "Czechia" to begin with and there's no consensus to use the later anyway. But I'm sure your counter argument to that will be just to handwave that I'm the one ignoring facts or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I like neither of the options.
  • Option A implies Czech Republic ⊂ Czechia. The latter is nothing else but a "shorter form" of the former (hence being more less equivalent), having started to appear around ten years ago.
  • Option B implies Czech Republic ⊂ Czech lands. Czech lands was a quasistate with variable borders existing between 9–20th century, Czech Republic is usually considered a successor thereof. They are both subjects of the "Czech identity".
If there is a demand for having a (umbrella) supercategory for everything Czech(ia)-related, whether contemporary or ancient, have something like Category:Czech (supercategory), Category:Czech (topic), Category:Czech (term), etc. Its subcategories will be Category:Czech language, Category:Czech Republic, Category:Historical Czech lands and so on. This is the best compromise I can think of. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek I agree. Both options A and B seem to be an effort to conflate a country (current Czech Republic) with a nation/people/lands/region (not exactly defined what). This is incongruous, as a country cannot be presumed to be a subset of its related nation, nor vice-versa, even in cases where they may appear coincident at first glance. As for option A specifically, Czechia is widely used in reference to the country (alternate to or shorter form of Czech Republic), so it would be inappropriate to use that name for something else instead. As for option B, Czech lands are currently defined as a specific set of geographic regions (Bohemia, Moravia, & part of Silesia), though that's indirectly via WD. Is this limited to territories within the Czech Republic, or does it include external territories as well? Josh (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Option B doesn't actually sound that bad if we think of Czech lands as the "bearer" of the Czech identity. But it's confusing (made me confuse "Czech lands" and "Historical Czech lands" when writing my comment, I thought it was defined the opposite way).
As you say, "Czech lands" can also be the set of three geographic regions you can split the Czech Republic into for historical curiosity, i.e., which towns were located in Moravia, but other than that, it doesn't have much more to do with it. (By the way, since you split Czech Republic, shouldn't the relation be the opposite: Czech lands ⊂ Czech Republic?)
In general, Category:Czech Republic supercategories should be only Countries in Europe, Member states of EU, etc. and then possibly "Czech (supercategory)". Trying to make any other historical "Czech" entity a subset or a superset of it will eventually result in anachronisms. However, I see no problem in categorizing "History of the Czech Republic" ⊂ "History of the Czech lands". Because there is obviously only the historical aspect. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the people in the "lands" before the Czech Republic didn't have (or bear) the Czech identity and that's kind of what your insinuating by creating such a category and putting categories for groups of people in that had nothing to do with the Czech Republic or it's "identity." Like say you had have a Russian traveler who went through the area before the Czech Republic became a state. They weren't "Czechs." No one called them "Czechs." If you had of asked them if they were "Czechs" at the time they probably would have had no idea what your talking about. I don't think anyone know even calls them "Czechs" or considers them to be part of the Czech Republic outside of a few extreme nationalist. It's not that way in any other country either and what ever solution we adopt here has to follow how it's being done in other countries. If there is no "X country lands" categories then there shouldn't be one in this case period. And at least from what I can tell it's not done that way anywhere else. Otherwise be my guest and point out where other countries have "lands" categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: As you can see, trying to reach a solution here is futile. There is always someone who ignores arguments and facts and blocks a reasonable solution. --ŠJů (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how I'm ignoring facts when I asked you 4 times to provide some sources for what your talking about. It's not on me that your unwilling to provide any. It's impossible to agree on a reasonable solution when one side can't be bothered to do the basics of supporting their side of it with evidence outside of just just talking in circles about the other person is just ignoring things that aren't being provided to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont know if in English, but in Czech, name "Czechia" (Česko) is controversial re-introduced neologism from one person. Controversion is less intensive with time, but still there is negative perception of Česko of nany people. I am against such controversial names at all. Czech republic didnt exist before? Never mind, it is not only state which didnt exist before, for example Russia exist from 16th cenzury? USA? Kanada? Etc. Palu (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be a linguistcal problem. As a German native speaker I would not dare to propose a solution and I think that the Czech native speakers have to decide. In the past I have created categories and I wasn't sure which name to use. Anyway, I hope that a clear guideline for the future can be given. I admit that it would be difficult to understand what the difference between Czechia and the Czech Republic would be., if it cannot be used synonymous. I feel that there is a consensus, that by country categories mean states and not areas. Gürbetaler (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
That would be nice in theory, but it doesn't work for a global project. Things have to be universally accepted, used and understandable outside of a specific geographical area or group of people. Otherwise it doesn't really work. Otherwise you'd have examples like how as from the United States I prefer "America" over "the United States" because the later is longer and not really what we call it. But then most people outside of the United States don't call it "America" and it's ambagious anyway since it can refer to the American continent. So that doesn't really work on here.
With "the Czech Republic" versus "Czechia" as Palu points out it's a fringe neologism anyway. One that know one in the Czech Republic has even said would or should the replace main name for the country. It's simply a shortened for of "the Czech Republic" that the government decided to use in some cases where it's easier. Sadly though it appears to have gotten used by a few nationalists to baselessly refer to some ridiculous thing about Czech Republic lands that existed before the forming of the country when that has nothing to do with it's original intent. The fact is that most people in the Czech Republic still refer to the history of the area of the Czech Republic as such. Not "Czechia" or "Czech Lands." I don't think we should adopt a fringe neologism just because it's been pushed and misrepresented by a few nationalists either. Even if you could argue they should be the one's who should have the say or whatever because their local to the area. Otherwise I'll get right on Changing everything having to do with the United States to "America" lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1, @Gürbetaler, @Palu: I am fine with Czechia, but respect the lack of consensus on the matter, and thus am okay with retaining the status quo for now. All categories referencing the nation should use the name "Czech Republic" until such time as there is a consensus to change the whole thing. Since this proposal was not intended as a rehash of the Czechia vs. Czech Republic debate, I'd rather just move on from this and focus on the proposal by Sbb1413. Josh (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@Palu: source? Prove, that's a "controversial re-introduced neologism from one person". "Česko" is widely accepted in public discourse, media outcomes, spoken language (see Česko × Česká republika in the news). — Draceane talkcontrib. 11:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
w:cs:Spor o užití slova Česko. Palu (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
just a personal opinion and preference hidden under controversies and fears and other excuses Chrz (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I watch on my (printed) enciclopedia, and i read that "Antonín Dvořák, Bohemian composer of the Austro-Hungarian Empire". What has changed ever since that Bohemian Lands must be called Czechia? -- Blackcat 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Böhmen und Mähren were the two main regions of today's Czech Republic. Böhmen = Čechy is clearly a region and not the whole state. Thus we are not on the same level. Then again America is a continent. It's not a country. So I come back to the relevant question: Why is "Czechia" a "fringe neologism"? It is quite normal to speak about a country without the addition of formal state definition. Our country is officially the "Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft" (Swiss Confederation) but it's fully accepted just to speak about "Schweiz" (Switzerland). I still don't understand the controversy and would be glad for more explanations. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
It is quite normal to speak about a country without the addition of formal state definition. To qoute from a news article about it "Czechia and the Czech Republic have both been used in an official capacity for years (since 2016, in fact), with the former being simply a shortened form. From now on, however, Czech Republic will only be used in things like official government documents, legal correspondence and embassy business. Czechia will be used in things such as literary works and newspapers, as well as by people representing the country like sportspeople." So it is a formal state definition. Although the government has been pretty clear that they are only going to use in specific situations and that it won't replace The Czech Republic.
The issue comes in when people like ŠJů try to put a nationalistic intent beyond it that just isn't there and/or use it to white wash the history of the area by acting like "Czechia" was some mythological land of Czech people before the modern state. Not only is it ridiculous premise to begin with, but literally know one in the government has said that's what the word means. Again, it's just shorter form of "the Czech Republic" for purposes of making it easier to write the name of the country in news articles and official documents. That's literally it though. Just like we "USA" for the United States or the United Kingdom goes by the UK sometimes. Anyway, the important thing to take away here is that part of the quote I boldened Czechia being simply a shortened form of the Czech Republic. We usually use the full form of a countries name and there's zero reason to make exception in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
We usually use the full form of a countries name and there's zero reason to make exception in this case. Czechia is an equivalent to Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Russia. The Czech Republic is an equivalent to Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Mexican States, Russian Federation. The first form (= shortened form) is used everywhere on Commons, we don't use the full form in fact, but the shortened one. I don't see a valid argument to make an exception and use a long form in the case of Czechia / Czech Republic. — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the better analogy here at least for Germany would be deutschland. I don't think your example of the Kingdom of Spain works because that was the former name of Spain. The same goes for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" BTW. That was it's name, but it's not anymore. Whereas, the Czech Republic is not the former name of the Czech Republic. It's still being used and clearly more widely then Czechia. Once that's not the case then we'd obviously go with Czechia instead, but acting like "the Czech Republic" has been completely phased out (or even phased out at all to begin with) in the Czech Republic or anywhere else is just disingenuous. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 Goethe was German author, can be in subcategory of Germany but not of Federal Republic of Germany. Antonín Dvořák was Czech composer, can be under Czechia (top category) but not under Czech Republic. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Dvořák was Czech composer, can be under Czechia (top category) but not under Czech Republic. Well, it could sure. But there was already a CfD where the consensus not to have categories named "Czechia" until it's more universally adopted. Which people you seem to be ignoring for some reason. The fact is though that this has already been decided and there's zero consensus categories for "The Czech Republic" to "Czechia" or to use that name for categories at this point. I might support using "Czechia" purely for the historical territory, but out of two conversations now I have to see anyone provide any source what-so-saying saying that's what the name was created for and everything I've read in the meantime says it's just meant to be a shortened form of "the Czech Republic" because it looks better on forms. I'm more then willing to be proved wrong about that if you or anyone else can provide some legitimate sources saying otherwise though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"Czechia" will solve eeeeeverything. Just wait for Wikipedia to change in a month or 10 years, do not create specific commons nonsenses and specialities for this country. Chrz (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Soccerthons 2024 in Uganda

added parent categories, but the infobox seems to be about something else. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a user might have placed an infobox in a wrong place Fiktube (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Problem at d:Q129177377
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution

The following two seem to be about the same:

Can they be merged? Or should one be renamed?

One of them had come up on Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. → Enhancing999 (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support a merge. --MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    From inspecting the files in each category, the first category includes the v2 of the Koppen Geiger maps we developed, while the second category has the v1 and v2 of our maps, plus several other maps by others, many that are not even 1km resolution. 2601:2C6:5000:D5F0:94E2:ED93:5ECE:D5C8 23:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    In addition the v2 maps include maps for several different co2 emissions future scenarios, which do not overlap with the single future period in v1. I would suggest rename the first category to "Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution V2" and the second category to "Present and Future Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps at 1-km resolution V1". Thanks. NVergopolan (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds. If you want to try Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot for sorting, that would be cool.
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pronunciation of India

the contents don't match Category:Pronunciation of names of countries. Maybe some other subcats of that cat have the same issue. Moreover, "Culture of India" cats (here and in parallel cats if they are present there) probably are not appropriate, anybody could speak that word. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The audio files in this category DO match. Nevertheless I agree that the subcategories do not.
ludger1961 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Book referencing

Should probably be merged (moved to) Category:Sub-referencing without leaving a redirect – "book referencing" is a broad phrase and refers to referencing books with lots of media on WMC about it (but not in this cat and apparently not within the cat as currently inteded). Prototyperspective (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Thanks for the pointer. As the person who created this category in 2019, I agree that it should be moved to Category:Sub-referencing. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
+1, I missed the existence of the book referencing category when I created the one for sub-referencing, otherwise I would have just moved it. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Marktplatz 40 (Haßfurt)

fehlerhaftes Duplikat von Category:Hauptstraße 40 (Haßfurt) Redd4osm (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Wrong adress for Einhorn Apotheke, correct adress Category:Hauptstraße 40 (Haßfurt) Nemracc (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Private libraries in Germany

This category is both empty and appears redundant with Category:Personal libraries in Germany‎. Redirection may be appropriate. Ilzolende (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A private library could belong to an institution. A person library would belong to a person. Therefore, they aren't the same and redirection wouldn't be appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Reflected photographs

I don't understand what this category is intended for. "Photographs with (prominent) reflections"? It seems better to use more specific categories instead, like Category:Water reflections from grazing angles, but perhaps I'm missing something. Sinigh (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mirror effect also exists. Sinigh (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Free music on Wikipedia

The category title is misleading. I think it should be moved to something like "Free music on Wikipedia (Swedish project)" (or similar). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:People dying

It is hard to guess whether people are dying or not. There are various ways of death, but people can survive in most of these cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What's to guess at Category:Death of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington? Do you categorize based on guesses?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
That should probably be under death, not under dying. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nezarim Build and prepared

Please merge into Category:Netzarim as they deal with the same former settlement (NoteːCreator of category has sadly passed away earlier this month) DGtal (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There is only one wikidata item, so I've merged according to the English spelling (with redirect from the other spelling). Gveret Tered (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. DGtal (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Selection of pottery from the Przeworsk Culture in Kuyavian-Pomeranian province


Same issues also with Category:Selection of pottery from the Linear Pottery Culture and Lengyel Culture in Kuyavian-Pomeranian province Enyavar (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tagata Shrine minor haiden

move to Tagata jinja okumiya Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Commons To do

The cat title is ambiguous and misleading. For example it does not include pages like Commons:Audio and video requests or backlog cats and is only about Commons & Help pages that need a lot of work. Thus, I think it should be renamed to e.g. "Commons and Help pages in need of work" or something similar if the scope is not to be broadened to any kind of todos where the task/thing-todo is specified. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Maya calendars

Should probably be moved to the singular form because it's not only photos of the calendars but also the calendaric system and the glyphs. The {{Gallery page}} had a redcat link because the singular form category did not exist so I made it a redirect. The WP article is also in singular form. It's the same for Category:Julian calendars and maybe some other ones where the insufficient-quality gallery page has the singular title and no hatnote with a link to the category page. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: You can use {{gallery page|Maya calendars}} to link to the category instead of renaming the category. I have done just that to link কলকাতা (native name of Kolkata) to Category:Kolkata. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks, but it's not what this discussion is about and maybe I shouldn't have mentioned how I found out about the problem of this cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:People of Cork

Category:2000s stamps of the British Empire

There was no "British Empire" at this date Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What about stamps of the British Overseas Territories? And where does Gibraltar belong to? Is there a better term than "British Empire"? At least these are "remnants of the empire". Gürbetaler (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
If this category should exist at all (and I'm not sure it should), certainly it should refer to the "Commonwealth of Nations", not the "British Empire". - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gürbetaler and Jmabel: We usually categorize the British Overseas Territories under the United Kingdom, despite not being parts of the country, because those territories are under the British sovereignty. The Commonwealth of Nations also includes former British colonies, like Australia, Canada, India, etc. So I suggest deleting this category as an unnecessary anachronism. I had once created an anachronistic map of the British Empire (UK + dependencies + Commonwealth realms.svg), but that does not mean the empire continues to exist even though it officially ceased to exist in 1997. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Go ahead! Would the British Empire end in 1997? Or earlier? Thanks for explanations. Gürbetaler (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gürbetaler: Yes, the British Empire ended in 1997 when Category:British Hong Kong came under the Chinese sovereignty. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint George 4th class

Is this the same as Category:Recipients of the Order of Saint George IV Class? if so, please merge or make it a subcategory where it belongs.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:GS.TS Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa

Appears to be a quasi-article in Vietnamese (which I don't read). Clearly way more text than is acceptable for a category. It's also parentless, but it's not empty, so I can't just delete it. Can someone help out here? Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be 3 more uploads by the same user of the same person. I left a note at VP in Vietnamese.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Vietlifenano cross-uploaded them when editing Gs. Nguyễn Đức NGhĩa and Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa on Vietnamese Wikipedia (both deleted, check the logs). Looking at this revision, I think this user is self-promoting for Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa. Anster (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I think we could just rename the category to that. The images seem to be in scope for Commons.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Suicide by hanging

Suggesting rename to Category:People who died by suicide hy hanging consistent with Category:People executed by hanging. The cat contains mostly subcategories for individuals affected by suicide hy hanging, in analogy to Category:People executed by hanging containing subcategories for individuals affected by execution hy hanging. The wikidata infobox is misleading due to "cat main topic" filled that way on WikiData. Apart from "cat main topic", the WikiData item d:Q7190242 stipulated the category "Suicide by hanging" to contain people, in the same way as "People executed by hanging" does. 08:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Youth climate activists

should not redirect Prototyperspective (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Create this category. We generally consider people below 40 (including children and teenagers) as young people, and both young and mature people can be climate activists. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Somebody else can create this category. It should not redirect and it shouldn't be an empty category. This means somebody needs to turn it from a redirect to a subcategory and populate it or it should be deleted (it can be recreated). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Programme PONCA

this is in Category:Wikimedia projects and has this 1 file Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Clothed women with bare nipples

Looks to me, most images in the category appear to be about a bare breast woman wearing clothing, but we already have a category on the same concept as "Clothed women with bare breasts". If there is no better way to highlight the conceptual and functional differences than Category:Clothed women with bare breasts, it's fairly easy to get confused. Anyway, apart from the category title, I actually see almost no difference.--125.230.84.57 07:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge per nom. No need to go more specific for this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  •  Comment I started that category, originally under the title "Women wearing clothing with bare nipples", because many images were IMO inappropriately being put in "nude women" and related categories when the woman was otherwise clothed but with a visible nipple. I have no strong opinion of the best way to categorize, but do have this strong opinion: A visible nipple does not make a person "nude" or "naked". Some other relevant issues: I think "bare breasts" should be defined, perhaps with a hatnote. I'm concerned that many images with partially but not completely bare breasts might wind up there, like décolleté or "side boob" images. Also, are women wearing pasties bare breasted? The nipple seems a specific culturally significant factor. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Images generated by Microsoft Copilot

is this redundant to Category:Images generated by Image Creator by Microsoft Bing‎? See also this CfD and pinging cat creator @Cepice: . Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Air traffic control towers by country

The subcats are a mix of "airport towers" and "air traffic control towers". Which term is more common? As per the Universality Principle, only one term should be used throughout Commons for a given topic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, only one type of thing is involved, not two. What we have is two names for the same thing. My preference is for precision, so all should be named "Category:Air traffic control towers in Foo". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I concur for Category:Air traffic control towers in Foo. Accuracy of terminology is important. Be minded that airports also have radar towers, and towers for other radio communications equipment in support of airfield and airspace navigation and control, so theoretically, Category:Air traffic control towers in Foo should be a sub-cat of 'airport towers', along with say Category:Airport radar towers in Foo and Category:Airport radio equipment towers in Foo. Regards. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bilingual area entrance pillars in Ireland

  • Rename to something else maybe. Perhaps "Irish residential areas bilingual entrance pillars" as it woudd include both housing estates and apartment blocks. We are on an upward trajectory of seeing more of them in the future I believe. "Bilingual signs in Ireland" would be a parent category.
  • How would this suggestion address the twin problems of over-categorisation and lack of similar parents anywhere else in Commons? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
    The Bilingual Signs in Ireland and Official Languagess Act 2003 categories would be parent categories for it, I think. Most countries have not got an Official Languages Act OLA I think so that is I think the biggest reason why there may be no other parent categories in other Commmons languages for it.
  • Upmerge per nominator. Or even better, alt merge to Category:Bilingual English-Irish signs in Ireland, because all 4 files currently in this category feature this language couple. These files indeed belong in an appropriate bilingual sign category, however entrance pillars have not demonstrated their potential for a dedicated category, otherwise there would be a wider category for them. The belief in an "upward trajectory" is probaby not sufficient. Place Clichy 12:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Netto (supermarket)

i suggest

  1. renaming this to "Netto (Danish supermarket chain)".
  2. Category:Netto Marken-Discount stays unchanged.
  3. Category:Netto (Les Mousquetaires) for Netto (Q2720988).

RZuo (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support GeorgHH • talk   16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Portrait engravings of men

Clarify the difference between Category:Portrait engravings of men and Category:Engraved portraits of men EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:No longer existent subjects

Maybe it's just me but the name of this category doesn't make any sense what-so-ever because obviously the subjects in the category exist or there be categories and images related to them. I'm not really sure what to rename it to though. As the only thing that comes to mind is "former entities", which I'm not a big fan of. So does anyone have a better idea? Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

For me the category name may stay as it is, unless someone has a better idea. JopkeB (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
To me, it looks like a mix of things that no longer exist and things that are obsolete. For example, the extinct noble titles (extinct baronetcies, etc.) no longer exist. Obsolete medical terms may no longer be used, but they still exist. Dead organisms may no longer be alive, but they exist, except that extinct species (a subcat of dead organisms) don't exist.
So I think this needs some reorganizing, with some things staying in this category and others not. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that must be what caused the initial confusion. Moving categories is a better strategy than trying to come up with a catch-all term. I've moved some of the obsolescence stuff to that tree. Sinigh (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Schmitz Detlef family

Seltsame Kombination aus Familiennamen und Vornamen des Stifters bzw. Erfinders dieses Wappens. Wenn es ein Familienwappen sein soll, gehört der Vorname weg GerritR (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Stifter ist schon richtig, "Erfinder" in diesem Zusammenhang nicht gebräuchlich. Warum mit Vorname? Weil der Familienname "Schmitz" sehr verbreitet ist und es auch andere Familien gleichen Namens gibt, die aber andere Wappen führen.
So dient der Vorname hier der eindeutigen Zuordnung, um welche Familie Schmitz es sich handelt. Detlef.Schmitz63 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Kategorie ist leer, weil die Wappen wegen com:OOS gelöscht wurden. Kann daher ebenfalls weg.--GerritR (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:SVG Tibetan Letters

Should be "letters" lower-case, but in line with other subcategories of Category:Glyphs of Brahmic scripts in SVG and since this category also contains two diacritics, Category:Tibetan glyphs in SVG is probably the most consistent name. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving to "Tibetan glyphs in SVG", and would support expanding this proposal to all of the subcategories of Glyphs of Brahmic scripts in SVG, except for "Malayalam numbers in SVG". VanIsaac (en.wiki) 18:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tribal village

Parentless category. Intended scope is not at all clear. Is this about a specific legal status of a community, or something else? Is this intended to be specific to some country or countries that have a clear designation of "tribal"? Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As stupid as making a Category:Global village. However, what is more stupid is to discuss this kind of stuff, instead of outright deletion. It looks like people in Commons have too much time and energy to dedicate to absurd activities. 191.126.5.238 12:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
 Weak keep. While the definitions of terms like "indigenous" and "tribal" are contested, both terms convey the sense of primitiveness compared to the modern society. There are a lot of paintings depicting indigenous or tribal villages (like this one), and there are populated places that look primitive compared to modern villages and towns. By the way, the category should be under Category:Tribes, and the name should be in plural. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Indigenous means primitive, ha? Where I live we have indigenous peoples like the Mapuche, Aymara and others who have representatives in all walks of life, artists, writers, academics,politicians, journalists et al. I can't see anything primitive in them. Buy a mirror or eye glasses. 191.126.5.238 15:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Where I live we have indigenous peoples like the Mapuche, Aymara and others who have representatives in all walks of life, artists, writers, academics,politicians, journalists et al.

I didn't meant primitive in this sense, I meant primitive in culture, as mainstream cultures have evolved over time while marginalized one don't. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
This is getting way out of discussion of the value of this particular category, but if you don't think tribal cultures evolve, you should look at Northwest Coast and Native Alaskan art over the last 200 or so years. I could date a piece of art from a tribe I was familiar with as readily as I could date a piece from a European artist, by looking at materials, motifs, or even what art form they were working in. - Jmabel ! talk 20:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Regardless of the definitions of the terms like "indigenous" or "tribal", I think the scope of this category should be to cover the villages dominated by the minority communities that are considered "indigenous" or "tribal". Category:Bishnubati is a good example of a tribal village in India, which is dominated by the Category:Santal people, a Scheduled Tribe of India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
So, for some U.S. examples, does (for example) Bethel, Alaska, qualify? How about Metlakatla? Skokomish? All with solid majorities of people from legally recognized indigenous (upwards of 2/3 in all cases); none of them what I'd be inclined to call a "tribal village", but all meeting that criterion. I still say this is going to be more of a "that's what it feels like to me" category than something we can really define. - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)