Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11

Category:CfD 2024-11

Category:Media from the Internet Archive

what is this about; it should likely be merged, it contains nearly none of the many files Prototyperspective (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a silly reason to delete a category Trade (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
There's thousand of files from IA on WMC a) youz didn't make any effort to put at least a sizable fraction in there such as at least adding subcats which already hold many such files b) I don't see what this would be useful, it's like making a category for Images with nearly no files in it. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
 Delete There are categories such as Category:Scans from the Internet Archive and Category:Files from Internet Archive Book Images Flickr stream. No need to mirror that. ~TheImaCow (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Subcategories of Category:Internet Archive are somewhat suboptimal. Couldn't all "from" go into this one?
Category:Images from the Internet Archive seems strange. I don't really see a difference between the scans there and those elsewhere. Also, why is "Pinterest" a parent category?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
 Delete Duplicate of Category:Files from Archive.org. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete This is category duplicates others. It is potentially a valid name but it only contains a few files, and there are other more used categories in place for the same purpose. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:McDonald's by year

This category contains over 200 subcategories in the format of "Year in McDonalds" & "Month/Year in McDonalds". Almost all of those categories have less than 5 members. This actively hinders easy navigation, for no benefit - there is no realistic reason as to why anyone would care weather an image was made in 1982 or 83, or May 2019 or June 2019. Much less reason to divide navigation like that.
I propose to:
Upmerge categories before 2000 to the existing CAT:McDonald's in the 1960s, 70s and so on (there are 20-30 images per decade currently)
Upmerge most Month/Year categories after 2000 with probably less than 20 or so members to the respective year category. (Alternatively 2000-2020, month categories before '20 contain on average 5 or so files)
I tried to do some cleanup with the 1900s categories, but this was reverted by User:Infrogmation who created a lot of these categories apparently. ~TheImaCow (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is splitting carried to a foolish extreme. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The category was created in 2015 by @Olybrius: . It is a subcategory not only of Category:History of McDonald's, but also Category:Restaurants by year. Individual year categories are for the intersection of those two parent categories. IMO when there are more than a couple of items in intersections, such categories can be useful. I reverted some of the unilateral removal of categories because there was no discussion. If the year categories are deleted in favor of decades only, please be sure to add the relevant restaurant by year category to all individual images. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat

User:Thierry Caro is constantly creating incorrect category names in French and ambiguous without artist's name, see e.g. La Pêche chinoise. He did not react to my User talk:Thierry Caro#correct cat naming with artist's name e.g. Portrait of a Knight of Malta Oursana (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

In relation to the category itself, how should the name, description, categorization or scope be changed? This doesn't appear to have been renamed. Your general debates aren't really in scope for this CfD topic.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
My proposal is: Boats at the beach of Étretat by Claude Monet Oursana (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think both approaches are reasonable, at least until we find others with the same title. Also, I'd favor "()" over "by".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The Category name is ambigious, you do could think your holiday photos could go there, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Beach at Scheveningen in Calm Weather with further examples. Generally painting categories therefore mention the artist as well
File:'Rough Sea at a Jetty', oil on canvas painting by Jacob van Ruisdael, 1650s.jpg, and File:Jacob van Ruisdael - Rough Sea at a Jetty - Google Art Project.jpg were in category Rough Sea at a Jetty, as this was not specified a photo of jetty went into the category as well. So ambigious category names are not reasonable.
Commons:Rename a category demands unique not ambigious category names]]
Commons:Categories#Category_names should generally be in English, specially when using another language the category name must not be ambigious.
--Oursana (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the consensus is that we don't want do-it-yourself translations. The default category name for artworks is the work title. It's not clear how the above is ambiguous either. All three files in there seem correct.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
For me the photo of a jetty does not belong together with two files of an artwork in Rough Sea at a Jetty. The title of e.g. Renaissance or baroque artworks is regularly given or translated by art historians.Oursana (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It's more likely this happens when the title is translated. It seems obvious that Category:Portrait of a Knight of Malta isn't suitable as category name for an individual painting.
As far as Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat goes, I think it would be nice to have photographs of the same viewpoint in that category.
For sculptures, I tend to include artist name and year if not location in the category name.
BTW there is some debate about the language at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Cristo Redentor (Rio de Janeiro).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I see here a couple of issues.
  1. How do we name files?
  2. How do we name categories?
  3. How do we disambiguate files, and in those cases, respective categories.
We can't do much about file names, because of they reflect different aspects as there are titles, museums and locations, collections, photographers, artists.
Categories instead should be named by title of the artwork, disambiguated by the artists name, i.e. Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat or, just in case a disambiguation is needed, Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat (Claude Monet). Or do we want to include the artist's name in any case, like in Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat by Claude Monet and not only when disambiguating it? I see some advantages in doing so.
However, the category should be named in the language it was originally given. There is no reason to translate the artiwork's titele from French into English. Saying that Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat by Claude Monet and not Category:Boats on a beach near Étretat by Claude Monet.
Commons:Categories#Category names does not apply in these cases. It's about original titles of artwork, also called proper names and not things for which obviously descriptions are translated as in Category:Rivers in Baden-Württemberg. Matthiasb (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
CfDs are about categories not files.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
You don't get one without the other sincewe#re dealing with titles. Matthiasb (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I meant "category names and not file names".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
But in arts or, more specific categories named by a specific artwork, we deal with proper names. It is obvious that an artwork by Claude Monet initially was named in French language. You would agree that there is no reason to name the Commons category in Chinese or Arabic? In Portguese or German? Likewise, why should it be named using the English translated name of the Artwork instead of rather than the Chinese or any other language besides the original language. Hence, Category:Bateaux sur la plage à Étretat by Claude Monet is the way this category should be named. And that sholud be done in similar way for any other original piece of artwork nethertheless wich language that is. Matthiasb (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Judeo-Arabic

Duplicate of Category:Judeo-Arabic languages Andre🚐 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If there's more than one such language, then the one that says "languages" is better. If there's just one, then the other one is better. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a group of related dialects. Andre🚐 22:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Agricultural land

What's the difference between Category:Agricultural land and Category:Fields? The Wikidata definitions of both categories are almost similar, both are lands used for agricultural purposes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what we should do with it, but: "agricultural land" is broader than "fields." Terraced farming, for example, or the hilly acorn forests in Spain where pigs graze. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Also I see the distinction: fields (type of crops) are just a type of agricultural land, with artificial delimitations and low vegetation; fields are mostly flat, whereas mountain hills used for pastures are usually undelimited (except by the natural uncrossable relief and waterbeds and smooth transition of vegetation and some informal paths) but have significant and varying slopes (these pastures no longer have natural vegetation, which has been modified by humans, but they are not crops). Agricultural lands planted with forests are not fields (but are another type of crops). Natural forests (which are neither fields, nor crops) are now becoming rare on Earth, except in protected natural reserves, due to the extended forestry agriculture. As well not all the agricultural cultivable lands are fields (possibly because of protection, pollution, abandonment, desertification, rarefaction of water ressources, fragmentation into too small parcels, or the impact of some natural disaster, so that human cultivation is no longer profitable before a significant recovery time, and repreparation later if recovery is possible unless they are left to the nature to reconquest these lands): these lands are also another kind of agricultural "reserves" (no longer used or still unused) for an undefinite time, but not really protected for an environmental goal... verdy_p (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Farmland in England

What's the difference between Category:Farmland in England and Category:Fields in England? I think "farmland" and "field" are synonyms. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: Fields are not exclusive to the farming industry, and not all farming in the UK (and elsewhere) is carried out in traditional fields (e.g. fells, moors, dales, crofts, forests, parklands; and many more traditional farming 'enclosures', not to mention farm buildings in all their various incarnations!). 'Category:Farmland in ...' is already established in the category tree. Regards. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
@Militum professio scriniarii: Category:Farmland in England does not have the parent category Category:Farmland in the United Kingdom. Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Farmland does give similar cats, like Category:Farmland in Cantabria, Category:Farmland in City of Blacktown and Category:Farmland in Rooty Hill, New South Wales. However, Category:Farmlands redirects to Category:Fields, so the point of "Category:Farmland in X" being "established" in the category tree is not true.

Fields are not exclusive to the farming industry

Yes, the word "field" may have other meanings, but Category:Fields refers to pieces of land used for agricultural purposes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: With the greatest of respect, you are not from the UK, and you clearly know nothing about the different land classifications in the UK (legally, statistically, geographically). 'Field' and 'farmland' have totally separate meanings in the UK, and to class all fields as farmland is just blatantly wrong! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:House from Budieni, Gorj in Village Museum, Bucharest

How is this different from its parent category Category:Homestead from Budieni, Gorj in Village Museum, Bucharest? Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In general, I would think that "homestead" would include more property than just a house. However, the images in this homestead category show just the house. Some images are even in both categories. I think we could merge it all to the house category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Australian rules football grounds

I've a dispute with Bidgee on whether this category belongs to Category:Playing fields or not. The problem was that Category:Association football venues was under Category:Association football fields, but Category:Association football venues came under Category:Sports venues and Category:Association football fields came under Category:Playing fields, which is a sub of Category:Sports venues. That is:

I've tried to fix this issue by putting Category:Association football fields under Category:Association football venues instead of the other way around. Also, as a result of a category discussion, I've created Category:Football venues and Category:Football fields, with latter as a subcategory of the former. So putting Category:Australian rules football grounds under both Category:Football venues and Category:Football fields would be considered overcategorization, which is discouraged in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A lot of regional grounds are not considered to be venues, since they only have basic infrastructure (change rooms, scoreboard and maybe a canteen), nothing like the MCG, SCG, WACA ect. Bidgee (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Also why are Category:American football field and Category:Canadian football field being treated differently? Bidgee (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hromadas in Ivano-Frankivsk Raion

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Ivano-Frankivsk Hromada

@Ahonc: If Hromada is not part of the name, then why change the category name? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not say that it is not part of name. Ivano-Frankivsk Hromada is transliterated shortened name of territorial community. Full name is Івано-Франківська міська територіальна громада — Urban territorial community of Ivano-Frankivsk. But it is not consider as administative-territorial division.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

please comment here General discussion about Ivano-Frankivsk - --Микола Василечко (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality

Commons categories should help to find or curate media files. I can´t see how this category could be helpful. Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It can be helpful for those navigating through cat:LGBT history. Web-julio (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete What's historical? Do you have to be dead? I suppose you cannot libel the dead. This category is just a catch-all for revisionist history. Is there good scholarly evidence that they would have self-identified as such? If so, then include them in some category called "People with_ambiguous_or_disputed_sexuality". But I doubt that such evidence exists. In many cases it's just evidence of slanders by their contemporary enemies. That's just hearsay evidence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    All of them are substantially sourced through Wikipedias, some even have specific articles dedicated to their sexuality. You doubt because you didn't even tried to verify any. Web-julio (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
    Not true. I was aware of that Wiki category. My comments above still apply. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Damage caused by Typhoon Krathon in Taiwan

Looks like a duplicate of Category:Effects of Typhoon Krathon (2024) in Taiwan. Merge or add note on the two categories to distinguish what each is for.--125.230.64.51 09:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the only storm that has a "Damage caused" category, so I favor merging to the effects category. This would be consistent with the subcat names for Typhoon Gaemi and Severe Tropical Storm Trami (2024). -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The photos have been categorized and moved according to the previous naming convention, and can be deleted.-- 🚊。鐵路Railway Talk 01:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Earth cooking in 2022 in Portugal

This category feels overly specific. Are we going to classify all pictures of "Earth cooking in Portugal" by year? I'd suggest instead sticking to "<year> in the Azores" and "Earth cooking in Portugal".w Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Category:Earth cooking in Portugal as a redundant "by year" category where no other years are present. The "Earth Cooking" category tree seems to only be used for Geothermal heat so it should be moved to something unambiguous like "Geothermal cooking" to differentiate from buried hot coals in a pit roasting etc.--Kevmin § 17:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Good point on "Earth cooking" vs. "Geothermal cooking". Created Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Earth cooking. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Earth cooking

In Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Earth cooking in 2022 in Portugal, @Kevmin makes the good point that "Earth cooking" is too broad of a title for this category. Additionally we already have Category:Earth ovens which covers any type of ovens buried in dirt. I would suggest renaming this category to Category:Geothermal cooking or Category:Geothermal ovens, and making it a child of Category:Earth ovens. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Support this category branch as defined by the media in it at present is restricted to geothermally heated cooking and should be renamed to reflect the narrow scope.--Kevmin § 17:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mudpot activity at Furnas Volcanic Complex in 2007

Overly specific. I suggest removing this category. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't think this category "overly specific". It makes a difference telling us which volcano showed unrest in which year - perhaps indicating a soon following eruption.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:French citizens living abroad

Is the "living" part of the category name redundant? I mean, it can be shortened to Category:French citizens abroad. Also, although we do often categorize people according to their countries of citizenship, the target categories themselves don't use "citizens", instead using just "people". So, it can be renamed to Category:French people abroad, in consistent to the categories Category:French people and Category:Bengali people abroad. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not formally oppose this change on this parent category, however the "French citizens living abroad" is a direct translation of a legally defined terminology, notably for official political elections in France:
  • People allowed to vote abroad must be "French citizens", and it is possible only if they have an official residence abroad, with a diplomatic passport or a standard passport and legal visa residence obtained from the host country, and a proof of such residence with an official address registered at a local French embassy or consultate (if needed in countries outside the EU), and not just French visitors/tourists/students/workers in mission (with temporary visas outside the EU), and not illegal emigrants (however this may include them if they are held in custody or hostages as they are represented by official French political bodies even if they can't freely vote under this status).
  • These people can elect deputies representing them in the French National Assemblee, and they are also represented by senators in the French Senate. There are also related French institutions estrablished abroad, or serving these people living outside of France, (including for applicable revenue taxes, social security (public retirement plans and health care), education and culture, security and legal protection or assistance (as organized by French diplomatic bodies or security forces).
  • So it would not apply to these political subcategories. Note that the two currently listed subcategories are just about this legal French political concept (and so they should not be renamed). verdy_p (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
@Verdy p: Is that Français établis hors de France? Is that different from Category:French expatriates? If so, maybe the legal term should be left in French. I think that's allowed for the official names of things. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Unless there is some nuance I don't understand, leave as is per above discussion. Term with legal definition in relevant country. "French citizens abroad" could include tourists and other people making short trips, so would significantly change the meaning of the category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Recent geology

Affected categories: hastemplate:"Category for discussion" intitle:Recent

Nominating this category and all "Recent" subcategories. As far as I can tell (I'm no geology expert), this concept of recent geology is not covered in the English Wikipedia and seems to be only used here. I'm not sure what we benefit from grouping holocene and anthropocene into recent. Additionally there is a lot of overcategorization happening between "Something" and "Recent something" categories. I suggest getting rid of this whole category tree. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

See also: Category talk:Recent geology where some explanation has been given. JopkeB (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Seals of Canada

Could also refer to pinnipeds, see also Category:Pinnipedia in Canada. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine a native speaker being actually confused, but I can imagine a non-native being so, so add a hat note, or add a parenthetical and turn the old name into a disambiguation. I don't really care which. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
The category name is consistent with the other categories listed under Category:Seals by country. I can see how a disambiguating hatnote would be useful, though. --Robkelk (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Robkelk: The parent category Category:Seals (emblem) uses parentheses for disambiguation, so according to the Universality Principle, all the subcats should be renamed to "Seals (emblem) of X", which is useful to distinguish between pinnipeds and seal emblems. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: , that policy requires that "Identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization." Following that policy, the parent category should be renamed to match the other categories. --Robkelk (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  1. That's actually a grandparent category, and with no context beyond the word itself, I think the disambiguating phrase is useful.
  2. Category:Seals of Canada follows the same pattern as every other category in Category:Seals by country, which really should settle the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Science technology society and Wikipedia Doctorate course 2024

I do not understand this category. It claims to be about an event in Milan, but includes photos from Aachen, Bratislava, Amsterdam, and Seattle, among others. What is this about? How are these images connected? Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel The category includes images and other files taken during or otherwise uploaded as a part of the Science technology society and Wikipedia Doctorate course 2024. I've added this as a description. Let me know it you think it's ok now! Jaqen (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I think it's should be split between:
Files about the course (topic): Category:Science technology society and Wikipedia Doctorate course 2024
Files from the course (source): Category:Files from Science technology society and Wikipedia Doctorate course 2024
or similar.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
And unless I very much misunderstand that latter should almost certainly be a hidden category: it's a non-topical sources category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Likely that all are. I added {{Source category}} to it for now.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bogies of locomotives

rv inappropriate page move. Category:Bogies (locomotive) meets our regular disambig policies, Category:Bogies of locomotives does not. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

We have hundreds of categories with "of" and this has become very common even if there are other possibilities. For a long time already we have the category "Bogies of rail vehicles". Sure you could call it "Rail vehicle bogies" or "Bogies (rail vehicles)". But there hasn't been such proposals until now. In this view it seems to be more logic to have the locomotive bogies in the same way. Comparing
  • Bogies of locomotives
  • Bogies (locomotive)
  • Locomotive bogies
the versions with bogies at the beginning seem to be more comprehensive. On the other hand, having so many things in brackets wouldn't be better, would it?. To be in the same logic we would have to move to:
  • Bogies (military railway vehicles USA 1918)
  • Bogies (model railway vehicles)
  • Bogies (rack railway motive power)
  • Bogies (railway coaches)
It would then be more logic, but not easier to find, to have
  • Military railway vehicle bogies (USA 1918)
  • Model railway vehicle bogies
  • Rack railway motive power bogies
  • Railway coach bogies
This would then fit with the existing categories
  • Tram bogies
  • Rapid-transit bogies
  • Goods wagon bogies
Where to go? And why? Gürbetaler (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
... and what to do with the subcategories like
  • Bogies of railway coaches in China
  • Bogies of railway coaches in the United Kingdom
Gürbetaler (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguator, not disambiguation. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
In this view you would also have to see the UK in Category:Locomotives of the United Kingdom as a disambiguator! And you would have to write Locomotives (United Kingdom)? Gürbetaler (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Is there anywhere a policy whether Tram bogies is to prefer against Bogies of trams? If yes, could you kindly point me to this policy? Thank you! Gürbetaler (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
It is a subcategory; the purpose of "locomotives" in the title is not disambiguation. Peter James (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
To me, Category:Bogies (locomotive), with "locomotive" used as a disambiguator, sounds like an appropriate name for a category about a locomotive or locomotive class named "Bogies". Category:Locomotive bogies and Category:Bogies of locomotives both seem like more logical names for a category about, well, bogies of locomotives. ACo2c (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the contributions. There seems to be a consensus, that Category:Locomotive bogies and Category:Bogies of locomotives are possible solutions. The final question is, if those, who want to categorize the bogie would rather approach the category search from bogie and then find bogie of locomotives or if they rather start at the locomotive and then realise that it is only a part of the locomotive - the locomotive bogie? When i categorize, I usually come from the bogie, but I'm aware, that's my approach. Looking at the name itself, the Locomotive bogie sounds better than constructions with "of". Thus I think, we should introduce th "of-categories" as redirects.
Thank you for any pros and contras Gürbetaler (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jewish refugees from Nazism

Category:Jewish refugees from Nazism has been recently created and seems to duplicate older Category:Emigration of Jews from Germany under Nazi duress. I suggest that the two categories are merged. --MKFI (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

These two categories are working independently. Each of them has connected to different articles and has their own pages on Wikidata.

Category:Jewish refugees from Nazism - Q2166139
Category:Emigration of Jews from Germany under Nazi duress - Q39086100

Boxes12 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Boxes12: perhaps those should be merged as well. The only overlap is in en-wiki and Commons. I have raised this in en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Are_these_duplicate_topics?. MKFI (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
People should probably be categorised in Category:Jewish refugees from Nazism, not Category:Emigration of Jews from Germany under Nazi duress, if they are separate categories. Peter James (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
There are three aspects that come to mind:
  1. Refugees don't have to be emigrants to be considered refugees, see Internally displaced person. "Internally displaced Jews" could be a sub-category of "Jewish refugees", but not of "Emigration of Jews".
  2. Emigration of Jews to escape Nazism was not limited to Germany; people also emigrated from other European countries. There were even emigrations from European countries that were not occupied by Germany. So, "Emigration of Jews from Italy" can be a sub-category of "Jewish refugees from Nazism", but not "Emigration of Jews from Germany".
  3. "Jewish refugees" sounds like it's a category that is focused on the people, so I'd expect to only find images of people or sub-categories of people by name in this category. On the other side, "Emigration of Jews" sounds broader in its scope, in that it might also contain documents related to emigration, or transportation vehicles of all sorts that were used for emigration (e.g. MS St. Louis), or particular events/occurrences of organized mass emigration like the Kindertransport or the 300-Children-Operation for example, or monuments and memorials regarding the emigration (like File:Gedenktafel St. Louis - St. Pauli-Landungsbrücken - Brücke 3 (Hamburg-St. Pauli).jpg).
Side note: The word Nazism should probably be changed to "National Socialism" for consistency in category naming. Nakonana (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Carnivals

See also: Category talk:Carnivals.

I think this category covers two different but related things, Carnival (the festive season) and carnival (similar holidays called "carnival" or similar that include masquerade). As per the Simplicity Principle, this category should be split into Category:Carnival and Category:Carnivals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I see I made much the same proposal 11 years ago at Category talk:Carnivals. While some good subcategories have improved the situation for specific places, the category has long been a mess. We should have a category specifically for the holiday (which in line with all other holidays should be singular not plural) and separate for all other meanings of the term "Carnival(s)", with appropriate subcategories. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:1969 archaeological discoveries

is this category not a dupliate of Category:Found in 1969 and if so under which name should it be kept? Robby (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Those Found in categories should be merged in to year in archaeological discoveries without leaving a redirect. Not just archaeology-related things can be "found"; improper cat title. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Prototyperspective. Also, it should have been a subcategory of "1969 in archaeology" rather than "1969 in science"; I have taken care of that. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Looking more, I see that the "Found in (year)" categories are arranged as subcategories of "Archaeological discoveries by year" which seems inappropriate - as noted things can be "found" in context other than archaeology. I suggest the issue that needs discussion is the "Found in (year)" categories, not this single category that seems appropriately named. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion should concern all the categories "Found in (year)" unfortunately I do not know how to proceed to do so, respectively where to start such a discussion.Robby (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographs of England by date

I don't recall any discussion, much less, consensus, to split the UK category and day-specific subcategories into subdivisions this way. Is there such consensus, or should they be re-merged? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of "country", which may also include the subdivisions of the UK. See: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06/Category:Wales. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: There is a RFC about this Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date. Sahaib (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete as not helping users. The vast majority of media on Commons with a title like "England in 1951" will be photographs. Adding a separate category for photographs duplicates tons of categories on Commons pointlessly, for example "Category:2024 in the City of Westminster" (about 1000 files, as far as I can tell every single one a photograph) doesn't need to be duplicated by "2024 photographs of the City of Westminster", and then "Category:Buckingham Palace in 2024" (all photographs) doesn't need to be duplicated by "2024 photographs of Buckingham Palace", and so on. Blythwood (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful categories. I use them. We also have similar categories for Germany, France and other countries. Why England is worse? Юрий Д.К 20:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • In my experience the UK is frequently subdivided into per-nation categories, and I don't see why this one is any different. I have noticed that the per-date sub-categories are named "England photographs taken on YYYY-MM-DD". Is this actually correct English? It doesn't seem so to me. Also, in practice, how are these categories maintained? Presently there is a highly selective and random-looking subset of YYYY-MM-DD actually existing. Could they ever hope to be completed and kept complete unless automated? I can see how the date would be automated, but not sure whether the location would always be easily automated. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Electricity pylons by state

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Countries by state by country.

Does this mean something other than Category:Electricity pylons in the United States by state? If so, what is it about? Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I added "Category:Electricity pylons by state by country|United States" -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 05:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Similar questions about Category:Overhead power lines by state, Category:Categories of towers by state, Category:Power lines by state, Category:Power grids by state, Category:Towers by state. I believe all were created in August 2024 by the same user, and all are sparsely populated at best. -- Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
 Keep usual, there are categories by city by country, categories by state by country, ...
Every category that is new is not immediately filled to the brim at the beginning. But in many countries there are states, and if there are electricity pylons sorted by states, for example Category:Electricity pylons in Germany by state, then there can be such a category. it complies with the category rules. The discussion should be factual and not personal, it doesn't matter if only one or several users create valid categories. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 05:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to imagine the use case for someone wanting this category. Who would ever be looking for "by state" without having already narrowed down to a particular country? That is, I can see someone looking with in the U.S. for a U.S. state, or within Germany for a Land, etc., but I can't see where this is a part of the hierarchy that would ever be useful to anyone. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
IMO it's just as useful as the by country, by city, by period, ... and other cases. In countries, when there is a distinction by state, the main category summarizes these cases. As is usual in other areas by country, by city, by period, ... . There is no reason to do it differently just here in this by state case. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 13:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Again: what is the use case? What task would someone be doing where they would find this category useful? - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures in the Efteling

Empty category. And by the way, every depicted fairy tale is a sculpture, so this category is unnecessary. S. Perquin (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I saw that you removed the files and categories that were here until yesterday from this category. Are these not about sculptures? It is at least about:
Shouldn't these categories and the categories of the files have this category as a parent? JopkeB (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
And why is this category unnecessary if you yourself write that every depicted fairy tale is a sculpture? Then somewhere in the category structure Category:Sculptures of fictional characters in the Netherlands should be in it. But I cannot find that category here. JopkeB (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
DearJopkeB, the Efteling is a theme park with depicted fairy tales in a fairytale forest. The entire fairy tale forest consists of sculptures. It is the same if you create a category about sculptures in a sculpture park which you then place in the category of the sculpture park. That is unnecessary, because that whole park is made up of sculptures. Besides, it is impossible to put all the depicted fairy tales in that category. There were only a handful of fairy tales in that category, which is why I had taken them out. Personally, I don't see the point of the category. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
And besides, a "Fairy Tales in the Fairytale Forest" category would be the same thing. In "Fairytale Forest" you could just put all fairy tales, because the fairytale forest contains only fairy tales. Imagine creating a category for everything like this. "Roller coasters that carts ride on", "Grass that is green", "Trees that are plants"... 😉 Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that you added today Category:Sculptures of fictional characters in the Netherlands as a parent to Category:Sprookjesbos. That is enough for me. So I am now pro  Delete of this category.
Still one  Question: How is Category:Statue of Pardoes, Efteling related to the Efteling (in the category structure)? I did not see a parent like Category:Sprookjesbos or Category:Efteling. JopkeB (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
That's a good question. The statue of Pardoes is part of the Pardoes Promenade and is located in Fantasierijk (Fantasy Realm). Pardoes is the mascot of the Efteling. I placed Category:Statue of Pardoes, Efteling in Category:Fantasierijk. And I placed Category:Pardoes in Category:Efteling. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion: This category can be deleted. --JopkeB (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced by this. I don't think Category:Efteling should be in Category:Sculptures in the Netherlands and Category:Sculptures of fictional characters in the Netherlands isn't a direct replacement.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The Efteling is the theme park itself, and the Sprookjesbos (Fairytale Forest) is part of the Efteling. In the Fairytale Forest are 30 depictions of fairy tales. There are many puppets, houses and sculptures within those depicted fairy tales. So indeed, Category:Efteling does not belong in Category:Sculptures in the Netherlands or Category:Sculptures of fictional characters in the Netherlands. Category:Sculptures in the Efteling is redundant in my opinion, as there are thousands of photos to be placed within that category. And then it becomes chaotic and totally unorganized. If you want to look for sculptures in the Efteling, it's better to do a targeted search, such as a fairy tale in the Category:Sprookjesbos. There were only a handful of images in Category:Sculptures in the Efteling. It was not at all representative. Totally unnecessary and useless. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:William Little Brown

No files, only a category for another person. I don't think a family tree structure is usually used for categorisation of people. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep - This category is currently being used for files related to William Little Brown (1845-1874) and wikidata: Q96657596. I've uploaded two US Federal census that represent educational sources to support William Little Brown, which is related to the Wikipedia articles Alexander D. Henderson Jr., and Girard Brown Henderson. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep since it's now being used. But @Peter James, for future reference, you can use {{Empty page}} on empty pages (including categories) to get them deleted. Just be sure they haven't been created so recently that there hasn't been time to populate them yet. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It was not empty, there was a subcategory but I'm not sure it should be a subcategory. Also should File:1870 United States Federal Census.jpg and File:1860 United States Federal Census for Wm L Brown.jpg be categorised under all the names listed in the census pages, none of them, or just this one? Peter James (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I would think it should be categorized under all the people we have categories for, but that categories don't need to be created just for that file. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:District of Columbia

The "District of Columbia" and "Washington, D.C." are identical. Having this distinction in categories will only create confusion and nonsense. Note that at our sister projects, legally, and practically, these are identical. As created by User:T2, this was a redirect, which is not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but as you can see, as long as it exists at all, some users will come along and populate it or create some kind of non-existent difference between media. In addition to delete, move all existing media and categories to Category:Washington, D.C. or relevant subcategories. --—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it's such a bad thing, much of the files are currently about the federal government and not specifically about the city of Washington. So it might simplify sorting. Obviously, Category:Picnic tables in the District of Columbia etc. should be renamed and moved.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • One is a settlement, the other is an administrative unit so they are different things even if Washington's city boundaries are the same as the District of Columbia, that said like Category:London/Category:Greater London it might not be helpful to have separate categories but I'm not sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Since 1871, the former City of Washington has been absorbed into Washington, D.C. (along with Georgetown, etc.). Legally and practically, there is no difference. There is no piece of media that would apply to the "District of Columbia" but wouldn't apply to "Washington, D.C." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Seems our sister projects got it wrong. Commons does accept media about the period before 1871.
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    We certainly could have a Category:City of Washington or Category:Alexandria County, District of Columbia as subcategories of Category:Washington, D.C. if needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, your summary about sister projects was incorrect: d:Q3551781 does link to several.
     ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Enhancing999: And 9 of the 20 sister links in District of Columbia (Q3551781) are redirects to their corresponding Washington, D.C. articles, and the remaining 11 D.C. articles are stubs or very small articles compared to their corresponding Washington, D.C. articles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
 Support — If boundaries of two geographical entities are same, there's no need for two separate category trees for them, and one category tree is enough. Crouch, Swale has already pointed out that Category:London covers both London (Q84) and Greater London (Q23306). Similarly, Category:Delhi covers both Delhi (Q1353) and National Capital Territory of Delhi (Q9357528). I once tried to distinguish between Kolkata (Q1348) and Kolkata district (Q2088496) by creating Category:Kolkata district separate from Category:Kolkata, but it is not proved to be a useful distinction. Same thing goes to Category:District of Columbia and Category:Washington D.C.. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
As Justin mentioned above, they are not the same, except when you ignore history. So do we want to ignore history? I don't think so, neither does Wikipedia aas Sbb1413 investigated.
It's possible that the solution for India doesn't or didn't work, but this should be discussed in the CfD for the relevant categories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment the whole Washington geography space would benefit by a disambig page. I'm currently trying to draw one up.
Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. See Category:Washington (disambiguation). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Seems nonsensical to have that and Category:Washington. Please stop the duplications .. It's not desirable in discussions nor with such categories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: For the history part, we can certainly have Category:City of Washington and Category:Alexandria County, D.C., as suggested by Justin (koavf). Otherwise, Washington, D.C. is coterminous to D.C.

It's possible that the solution for India doesn't or didn't work, but this should be discussed in the CfD for the relevant categories.

Yes, Delhi has gone through similar problems as D.C. The NCT of Delhi was initially a rump state of the Mughal Empire, which was later captured by the British in 1857, while the city of Delhi was much smaller. The British later established Category:New Delhi in 1911 as the new capital of India. Over time, Delhi, New Delhi, and the surroundings got united and be identified as a single city, coterminous to the NCT of Delhi, though New Delhi has kept its own municipal council separate from the rest of the city, which is governed under a single municipal corporation (except the period of 2012-2023, when it was split into three). The old Mughal city of Delhi is covered under Category:Old Delhi, by the way. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The suggested subcategories don't make much sense as subcategories of Washington, as they related to the district. As for India. just open a discussion if you need help.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The suggested subcategories don't make much sense as subcategories of Washington, as they [are] related to the district.

Yes, but since we'll treat Washington, D.C. and the District of Columbia the same thing, making them as subcats of Category:History of Washington, D.C. is not problematic. If necessary, we can leave a note that we treat Washington and the district as the same thing. I don't need help for Delhi, since the current category structure is fine. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I think you are mixing geographic scope with temporal scope. If you check Wikipedia, with articles about the District of Columbia, this isn't their scope. Possibly the situation with Delhi confused you and needs to be looked into in more detail.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 and Koavf: I have changed my mind, and I now think having separate categories for the city and the corresponding administrative division makes sense if and only if the city was not coterminous to the division at the time when the division was established. For instance, the city of Berlin and the German state of Berlin have been coterminous to each other since 1990, when the German state was created. So, there's no need for a separate Category:Berlin (German state) category. Same for Category:Greater London (category redirect), which was established to correspond to the metropolis of London, minus the City of London. However, the District of Columbia was much larger than any human settlement when the district was established, and it became coterminous to Washington, D.C. since 1871. The city of Delhi (represented by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi) is actually smaller than the NCT of Delhi (area of MCD: 1,397.3 km2; area of NCT: 1,484 km2). But for most practical purposes, we treat them as the same, counting New Delhi, Delhi Cantonment, and other settlements within the NCT as parts of the city, despite having separate local governments within the NCT. Since we usually label the areas governed by single local governments as settlements, it won't be bad to create Category:National Capital Territory of Delhi for the case of Delhi. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Call to like and subscribe

A mere few-seconds long call for liking and subscribing is not "attention theft" and nothing supports this absurd idea so I'd like to remove this category but Kai Burghardt is convinced that this belongs there. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: I believe it belongs to a sub‐category of Advertising. Please suggest an alternate category, this was the best categorization I could identify. And yes, I perceive it as attention theft as for example in 10 Harsh Truths You Need To Accept To Live a Happy Life.webm you start watching, you (start) pay(ing) attention and then from 1:10 – 1:22 you have a 15‑second advertising block, which you do not know in advance how long it will take (= attention theft). ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 05:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not advertising to recommend users to like and subscribe to a noncommercial channel. It's marketing however...albeit that term is not as fitting as it could be as often it's not about markets, just for enabling users to become aware of new videos from the channel. If you perceive it as such that doesn't make it so. That's short relevant info that you can simply skip forward and many of those videos have a segment that's much shorter than the negligible 15 seconds. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Colombia government logos from 2024

Esta categoría debería ser eliminada porque no concuerda con el formato de otras categorías similares (Ej.:Category:Government logos of Colombia in 2024) CarlosArturoAcosta (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been redirected. Is there any objection to leaving the redirect? -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hola, CarlosArturoAcosta. Ya se creó una redirección que apunta a Category:Government logos of Colombia in 2024. Auntof6 preguntaba un poco más arriba si te parece bien que se mantenga esa redirección. Si lo ves bien, dejamos la redirección y podemos cerrar ya la discusión. Un saludo: Alavense (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Satellite dishes (residential)

Rename to Category:Residential satellite dishes. Unnecessary brackets. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering that Category:Satellite dishes (mobile) also exists and both categories are subcategories of Category:Satellite dishes, I'd say the parentheses are necessary for disambiguation purposes. --Robkelk (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Robkelk: Yes, but both categories can be equally named as Category:Residential satellite dishes and Category:Mobile satellite dishes, following natural English instead of artificial parentheses. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: , making that change would violate the Universality principle that you mentioned in Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Seals of Canada. --Robkelk (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Robkelk: But the current names already violate the principle, as we usually follow the "adjective noun" format for naming categories rather than "noun (adjective)". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Horse ambulances

What are the differences between Category:Horse ambulances and Category:Horse-drawn ambulances? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

patient and engine?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
If the patients are horses, are there sufficient entries for Category:Horse-drawn horse ambulances? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 and Laurel Lodged: I suggest Category:Ambulances for horses if the patients carried in ambulances are horses. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
As you prefer. I think we could even create the intersection Laurel suggested. Avoids future questions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Old maps

Sbb1413 added Category:Maps in the public domain but this cat contains Category:Maps made in the 21st century which don't seem to all be PD. Should this cat be removed or a new subcategory be created or the category scope be changed so all non-PD-maps are removed? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I used to think that Category:Old maps would include only the maps whose copyright terms were expired. I don't know who has put Category:Maps by century under this category, which should be removed. BTW, categories starting with "historic(al)" or "old" are now discouraged, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Historic buildings. But this may or may not be an exception, even though it is a bit redundant to Category:Maps by century, Category:Maps by decade, Category:Maps by year, etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Commons has a definition for "old maps" and public domain is not part of that definition.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The question would be whether "maps authored over 70 years ago, that is, in 1953 or earlier" are all public domain. I don't think that is the case as of now albeit it's absurd that they aren't. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Aren't most works made slightly more than 70 years ago, not public domain? Why would it be different.
Anyways, I don't think it's a good idea to mix topical considerations with copyright questions.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that we rework the "old maps" definition. Given how many "recent maps from 1956" seem slightly outdated today, we could shorten the "old" definition down to 50 years. By next decade, I would even support the radical idea of declaring all maps of the 20th c. "old".
On the "maps of <location> by century" mentioned by Sbb above... yes, those are often aggravating and people should stop creating those categories unless there are really more than just three child categories.
Agreed with Enhancing, copyright isn't part of the consideration (and agreed with Prototyper on the sidenote, copyright terms are absurdly long). --Enyavar (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
"Old maps" as category is probably not satisfactory and might not be recommended, but re-categorizing "old maps" e.g. by century is an immense task and often the data is lacking or ambiguous. I could elaborate a considerable number of problems with categorizing maps - old or new. Periegetes (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photos in Flickr Explore

not all of these are photos so it should be renamed to e.g. "Files in Flickr Explore" or "Images in Flickr Explore" (if it doesn't contain videos) or split. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the category of User:Red_panda_bot automatic maintenance shizhao (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes and it has a flawed name. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Only a hidden maintenance category. It dosen't hurt if those 0,1 % of media there which are not actually photographs are called "photos" by some category. It certainly isnt a good reason for renaming 45,000 files. ~TheImaCow (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
45,000 files aren't renamed. I guess you're arguing the 45,000 files should not be edited due to a category change. Okay fine, then please move out the images that are not photos in a category above this one that is about Images. WMC should not have false category titles. It's misinformation to call drawings photos. Even worse, this cat is in a subcat of "Photographs by photographer". Prototyperspective (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Astronomy in the 900th-myr BC

it is not astronomy but astronomical events; rename these pls Prototyperspective (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose — The parent category is Category:Astronomy by myr. Also, Category:Astronomical events is already a child of Category:Astronomy. This is similar to political events by century being put under Category:Politics by century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The rationale is that astronomy did not exist that time. If astronomical events is in astronomy cats in later years that is probably not a problem since all of these events were observed via astronomy. It's different for earlier years like the case above. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Probably all the subcats of Category:Astronomical events by myr should be renamed (I notice you've renamed it boldly while the discussion is going on, which is not always a good thing). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, with rename these pls I was referring to the other subcategories which is the main reason why I created this discussion, the remaining reason is that people may want to do something about the ~4 latest subcategories as during that time astronomy may have already existed. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I am not at all convinced that this is a useful system of categories. We categorize events in political history by the time period when they occurred not merely as a matter of trivia, but because they're likely to have been causally linked to other events which occurred in the same time frame. This isn't true of the history of astronomical events; e.g. the Category:Tin Bider crater and Category:Manson Impact Crater aren't particularly more related to each other than to other craters just because they both occurred within a few million years of each other. Omphalographer (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Of course it's valid and useful to categorize astronomical events by the time these events occurred. There are subcategories for more specific times. There are also causal links to other developments at the time. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:17th-century people of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom didn't even existed in the 17th century Trade (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Neither did the United States (Category:17th-century people of the United States) or Germany (Category:Germany in the 17th century) but finding media about a certain century is easier when you can go back from today´s perspective. Rudolph Buch (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that finding media about a certain century is useful. You find such media in a place (e.g a museum or gallery in a city). You do not not find it of a place. The particular museum is in a city and the city is in a state. But the state in which that the museum is located is in the present time. The state is not in the 17th century. It is the portrait that was painted in the 17th century. So we have a 17th century portrait hung in a 21st century museum in the UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I don´t care about of/in/from as long as it is the same for all countries and centuries. All subcats of Category:People by country by century (that´s more than 1000) are using "of" and this shouldn´t be broken for a single category or for rather academical reasons. Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I have no problem with People by country by century categories. As long as those states existed in those centuries. Anything else is ahistorical, anachronistic presentism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment — Although I usually suggest users to discuss such matters at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century, I'm not doing this for now, as a user has requested not to broaden that discussion. Anyway, as always, I'm for nuking the millennium/century/decade/year categories of countries that don't exist in a given century. But I support millennium/century/decade/year categories of continents, as they have existed for millions of years, predating humans. I also support millennium/century/decade/year categories of cities from their inception till present (see Category:Kolkata by century for example, which starts from the 17th century (inception) till present). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:SVG rail transport maps (current)

Rename to Category:SVG rail transport maps, removing the unnecessary "(current)" disambiguation. Although I know that SVG rail maps generally show the current status of rail networks, there might be SVG heritage rail maps that needs to be categorized under SVG categories like this. Also, we generally don't use "current" in category names; it is either a rail network or a former/heritage rail network. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind whatever name is used for this category, as long as the categorized maps remain editable without any special rights needed for that.Clicklander (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:画像

All images with copyright sign. From new user with only this porno images. Riquix (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Delete I deleted all the porn. One remaining image, but categories should be in English. Yann (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Yann:

categories should be in English

This is "commons.wikimedia.org", not "en.commons.wikimedia.org". COM:LP says, "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." The user below is right that it is a category of a Japanese book, and Japanese books usually don't provide romanized titles for anglophone audiences. Many books in Indian languages do provide romanized titles, though the reason is different. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
 Keep This is a category for a Japanese book. Just like all other 246,611 Japanese book name categories, it is in Japanese.--維基小霸王 (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:High schools and secondary schools

Although both "high school" and "secondary school" are common terms for institutions providing secondary education, combining both terms is not useful for end users, as it may seem that "high schools" and "secondary schools" are not the same thing (which is not). Suggest moving to Category:Secondary schools, which is consistent with Wikidata item, Wikipedia article, and the parent category Category:Secondary education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support Looks like the issue has been noted before on the talk page in 2009, see Category talk:High schools and secondary schools. But the issue didn't receive any community attention and input, and therefore a wrong conclusion was reached for what should be the new category name, I guess. Nakonana (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.
Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "Secondary school" is an uncommon technical term that's mostly used in the United Kingdom or former British colonies. It's not widely used or known outside of places that speak British English though. As evidence of that, there's currently 65 thousand categories using "high school" and only 10 thousand using ""secondary school." It would be ridiculous to rename 65 thousand categories to something that's clearly not widely used just for Wikidata and/or Wikipedia's sake. It's tangential, but I'm not a huge fan of all the category fiddling that's been going with categories for educational organizations lately. Like the whole "higher educational institution" nonsense. All it does is needlessly overcomplicate things and fragment the category systems for educational organizations way more then they already are or need to be. The exact thing applies here. This is needless busy work for it's own sake and it will just lead to more pointless fragmentation if it's implemented. The categories for "secondary schools" should just be renamed to "high school." --Adamant1 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
    There are too many countries where there's no such thing as "high schools" (e.g. Germany only has "secondary schools" which start from 5th grade and go up to until 12the grade). The literal translation of "high school" to German would be "Hochschule", but a Hochschule is a university in Germany. So, if you want a meta category for "high schools (per the American understanding of that term) by country", then the more general/universal term that would be independent of any particular national naming of such schools (like American vs. German) would be "secondary education institutions", because that's what American junior and high schools are and what German "weiterführende Schulen" are (of which there are 4 different types in Germany — to make things even more complicated). With the term "high school" each country has its own understanding what a "high school" is, but for "secondary education" all/most countries have a shared understanding of what it means. Otherwise, a category called "High schools in Germany" would have completely different content from a category called "High schools in the United States". If you want them to be about the same type of school then "Secondary schools/Secondary educational institutions" it is. Nakonana (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Nakonana: I wouldn't consider high schools or below to be "institutions." Usually that term is reserved for colleges, universities or the educational system in general. The whole attempt on here lately to shoehorn the term onto anything even slightly related to education is just asinine. More to the point, usually in the United States "secondary education" involves grades 6 through 12. Which takes place in middle schools, as well as high schools. Not just high schools. It would just be convoluted to combine both high schools and middle schools into a single category for "secondary schools" even if both are technically a part of secondary education. I'd quibble it would be ambiguous to combine the concepts anyway.
The main issue here IMO is the amount of categories for "high schools" versus "secondary schools." Clearly "high school" is the more widely used term regardless of German users. It just doesn't make sense to rename categories to something that has a usage of 1/6 just because of a small minority of users. Especially since most German's speak English anyway. Maybe there could be a top level category for "secondary education" containing both high schools and "secondary schools" and we could leave it there though. I don't really care either way. But again, it doesn't work to combine categories for middle schools and high schools into a single category for "secondary schools." Either that or we could get rid of specific categories for the type of school outright. Really what we are talking about here is "secondary education" though. Whatever a particular school calls itself doesn't actual matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
More to the point, usually in the United States "secondary education" involves grades 6 through 12. Which takes place in middle schools, as well as high schools. IMO that's an argument in favor of calling the category "secondary schools" or "secondary educational institutions" because middle schools and high schools provide the same type of education (i.e. secondary education) and, unlike the United States, a number of countries don't have separate schools for secondary education, grade 6 to 12 are all located in one school: secondary school. And it's not just Germany, but probably most countries of Europe. It's not a minority — Europe has a population of almost twice of that of the United States.
So, all countries have some sort of secondary education institutions, but the particular institutional organization of the education system differs from country to country, so that the most universal, catch-all category would be something like "secondary schools" or "secondary education institutions". This way we'd have a category for secondary education institutions without having to create a separate category for each type of school of every country. Nakonana (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment What about just not categorizing things by the type of school in the first place? I don't think there's enough categories to justify it in most instances anyway. Let alone once you get down to the regional or city level. But similar organizations aren't categorized based on their legal designation or whatever. So I don't see why it needs to be done here. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think there's enough categories to justify it in most instances anyway. I think you are underestimating the numbers. A small-ish city like Volgodonsk, Russia, with its roughly 170000 inhabitants has 34 secondary schools alone. The city Recklinghausen, Germany, with its 115000 inhabitants has 13 secondary schools. Not all countries have such large school complexes as the United States, so that even small towns can have several secondary schools. The town Anröchte, Germany, has only about 7000 inhabitants, but there are also 3 secondary schools in Anröchte. But similar organizations aren't categorized based on their legal designation or whatever. Which other institutions/organizations are you thinking of? Nakonana (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
The city Recklinghausen, Germany, with its 115000 inhabitants has 13 secondary schools God forbid a category has 13 subcat lmao. Is that seriously your argument?
Which other institutions/organizations are you thinking of? I was mainly thinking about companies. In that case we don't organize categories for them based on if they are sole proprietorships, limited liability companies, or corporations. Rightly so IMO because it's meaningless trivia that no one cares about. The same goes for non-profit organizations BTW. Yet somehow we still seem to get along fine doing it that way even though most towns have more then 13 companies. The sky isn't falling because Category:Manufacturing companies in Berlin has 12 subcategories. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
If we make a "Category:Schools in [city]" only, then we'll end up with hundred subcategories, because there are likely at least as many elementary schools in a city as there are secondary schools, plus, you'd need to add special education schools, plus, vocational schools, plus, music schools, art schools etc. to that category.
And where would we draw the line? Are nursery schools/kindergartens also "schools" in the understanding of a "Category:Schools in [city]"?
And why would we then need a separate "Category:Universities and colleges in [city]"? There are definitely less universities in a city than there are schools, so if having 13 subcategories is no justification to have "Category:Secondary schools in Recklinghausen", then how many cities in the world are there even that would qualify for having a "Category:Universities and colleges in [city]" by having more than 13 higher education institutions? The city Bochum, Germany, has more than twice the population of Recklinghausen and is among the 20 (if not 15) largest cities of Germany, but if I remember correctly, there are "only" 4-5 higher education institutions in that city (among them: Germany's largest campus university with about 40000 students), so it looks like there's no justification for there to be a "Category:Universities and colleges in Bochum", according to you, is that correct? Nakonana (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
The sky isn't falling because Category:Manufacturing companies in Berlin has 12 subcategories. I don't think that this supports your argument. The Category:Companies based in Berlin apparently does subdivide companies by type (e.g. manufacturing companies) even if the resulting subcategories only have 12 subcategories of their own. So why should Category:Education in Recklinghausen not have subcategories by type of school, like Category:Secondary schools in Recklinghausen, if that category would have 13 subcategories of its own? Nakonana (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
then we'll end up with hundred subcategories Not in 99% of the cases. Most cities it's a none issue and there's the reverse problem where there's a bunch of categories for schools that only contain one or two categories, which isn't great either. I rather have a couple of categories for the bigger cities containing a good number of categories then thousands of categories for smaller towns that are essentially empty. It's not there aren't a ton of "by name" categories on here that contain a hundred sub-cats though. So I don't think it's an issue.
And where would we draw the line? Are nursery schools/kindergartens It depends on the situation. Most places don't have images of or categories for nursery schools or kindergartens to begin with. In cases where there's is we have categories like Category:Nursery schools in Hyogo prefecture that contain a single subcat, two image, and most of the links to other locations are red links. There's no reason to have a category specifically for nursery schools in that instance. Your acting like there's images of every school in every town, city, or minor administrative unit on here. 99% of these categories are essentially empty and shouldn't have been created to begin with.
Why would we then need a separate "Category:Universities and colleges in [city]" I don't think we do. Universities and colleges are "schools" and there's no reason they couldn't go in a general category for schools along with other types of schools. Doing it that way would deal with a lot of issues.
The Category:Companies based in Berlin apparently does subdivide companies by type (e.g. manufacturing companies) That's by subject/type, not the legal status of the company which is what I was talking about. I don't think "secondary" is a type of school, since they can involve different ages, types of education, Etc. Etc. depending on the school and country where it's located. Saying there's a "type" of school called "secondary schools" insinuates commonalities that just don't exist from one school to the other. Whereas all "manufacturing companies" manufacture things, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Three Wise Men in art

(German) strain of Category:Adoration of the Magi MenkinAlRire (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Three Wise Men says "This is a category for Three kings not in Nativity scene. For that see Category:Adoration of the Magi." However, Category:Adoration of the Magi is a subcat here! I think it confuses things to call them different things depending on context like that. I support standardizing all related categories under "Magi" and redirecting the ones that use the other term. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Inscribed flags, letters

Should the subcategories of this category be reserved for flags that has a predominantly single letter inscribed, or contain all the flags that contain one such letter in its incribed texts? Xeror (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Rationales for these subcategories to be reserved for flags that has a predominantly single letter inscribed (e.g. File:Bandera Partido Alianza Cristiana Santaneña Costa Rica (Invertida).svg is only in Category:Inscribed flags, A), as opposed to including flags like File:Flag of the United States Department of Agriculture.svg that will be in 22 subcategories (A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, 1, 2, 6, 8, 9):
  • No one would search for a flag of a government agency with name containing some letter "e" in its name. Including those flags would take away the attention to those flags that truly belong there. Imagine you try to look for a flag that has a single "A" but you have to go through pages of flags with seal that has an "A" in it.
  • There are numerous flags with seals. They will all likely be included in 10 or more subcategories. All the vowel subcategories will include the vast majority of these flags.
  • This creates two problems: Each flag is over-categorized (10-20 such categories). Each category is over-crowded (hundreds of flags in most categories).
Xeror (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • All the flags that contain one such letter. First off, thanks for posting. If you look at the various categories for flag elements, they include so many small or niche or trivial things because it's an impossible judgement call to say what is prominent and what is not or what really "counts" as being on the flag or what doesn't. In the case of inscribed text, the turn of the millennium flag of Rwanda certainly has a very prominent "R" inscription, but what about the flag of the California Highway Patrol? Certainly, the "CHP" is more prominent than "California Highway Patrol" is, but they are both very readable. And then you have the text inside the seal, which is definitely less prominent, but still a feature of that flag. Should all the elements on that seal not count for categorization? If not, which ones should and shouldn't? I've tried to mitigate the issue of flags that have common phrases by making Category:Don't Tread on Me on flags, Category:E Pluribus Unum on flags, and Category:Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur on flags and some future categories like this can aid in navigation, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that if users have Category:Flags with 3 animals and Category:Flags with sixty-five white five-pointed stars and other very particular elements, a flag that has "W" inscribed on it at any size should be categorized along with all other such flags with "W" on them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    How about categorizing based on individual letters only, not on letters which are part of a word? I wouldn't feel terribly bothered if e.g. File:Flag of the Roman Empire.svg got categorized for all four of S + P + Q + R, or C + H + P for the California Highway Patrol flag, but breaking down words which appear on flags into their constituent letters is certainly going too far. Omphalographer (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Roofed signs and information boards

An intersectional category combining the categories Category:Roofed information boards and Category:Signs with roofs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, one should pick either "roofed signs" or "signs with roofs" (and make the other a redirect).
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
That should be discussed in a separate discussion, not here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The problem is if they are not meant to be the same, the two aren't the intersection you are mentioning.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:PD US ED

Why does this category have a clipped, almost unintelligible name? Just rename it to something meaningful like "Category:Public domain media from the United States Department of Education". I just don't understand the impetus for these obscure names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Files are usually categorized into the (similar) name of the license template. The systematic naming may make it easier to find easier files with a certain template. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
It seems like it could be named in such a way that has some clipped code like this but also something intelligible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Female members of the FDP

Category:Female members of the CDU

Gender is not a defining attribute to party membership. The categories contains no media _about_ female members of the party. All current subcategories are individuals who happen to be females and party members, which can easily listed by petscan if anyone needs that. Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rudolph Buch:  Keep both. We have Category:Female politicians, with Category:Women in politics as the parent, which is a valid topic. We may create Category:Female politicians from Germany and put both cats under this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Female politicians of Germany does already exist (politicians by country always have "of" instead of "from") and of course you put it there, but that´s not the point: I fail to see what good it does to split the categories for party membership by gender. I´m fine with it if it´s a topic, but the only content is individual people. As those are sorted alphabetically, dividing them has no advantage to a single category. Rudolph Buch (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:U+1F1F0-1F1F0

empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:㏍

empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:U+1F1F8-1F1F9

empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:U+1F1EF-1F1F7

empty category Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Religious personalities from Germany

What is this category doing that could not be done by Category:People of Germany by religion? Isn't it a redundant layer? Yes I know that lots of other countries also have the same category. Ya gotta start somewhere. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged:  Keep — Category:Religious personalities is not equivalent to Category:People by religion, and the former is there to categorize different types of religious personalities like Category:Hindu gurus, Category:Muftis, Category:Priests/Category:Priestesses (gender-neutral term needed), and Category:Sadhus. Category:Historical religious positions is strictly redundant, as it has only one non-empty subcat Category:High priests of Israel and we should be cautious while using category names containing "historic(al)". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The parent Category:Religious figures contains other types of religious personalities which should be diffused to the appropriate subcat. The distinction between Category:Religious figures and Category:Religious personalities is that the former can also refer to non-human or superhuman beings, while the latter mainly refers to humans (real or legendary). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Red-hair female soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces

This category really makes no sense, firstly it is named incorrectly, it should be called Red-haired, secondly you could also create categories for Black-Haired female soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces or Blond-Haired female soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces etc. This include the redirect. Greets: איז「Ysa」 19:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Red-hair female soldiers of Israel Defense Forces

The redirect, see other disc for the main category: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Red-hair female soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces איז「Ysa」 19:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:RML class London buses

Merge with Category:RM class London buses to Category:RM/RML class London buses: This and associated route and livery categories essentially represent the same class of London bus (the Routemaster), albeit slightly longer, as opposed to the SE and SEe class representing differing diesel and electric models of Enviro200. As such, I'd reccomend merging into Category:RM/RML class London buses, similar to Category:DM/DMS class London buses. Hullian111 (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:RM class London buses

Merge with Category:RML class London buses to Category:RM/RML class London buses: This and associated route and livery categories essentially represent the same class of London bus (the Routemaster), albeit slightly longer, as opposed to the SE and SEe class representing differing diesel and electric models of Enviro200. As such, I'd reccomend merging into Category:RM/RML class London buses, similar to Category:DM/DMS class London buses. Hullian111 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Censored by lack of FOP for graphic works in Canada

I object to the name of this category. This is no more "censorship" than any other copyright law. Authors having rights is not "censorship." Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, "censored" is a bit harsh when the goal is to protect author's copyright work. // sikander { talk } 🦖 17:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel @Sikander will Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP in Canada work? Though Canada technically has suitable FoP for Wikimedia (not including 2D flat arts). How about Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP for graphic works in Canada (which may be crude and long)? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Either fine with me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
One technical problem: by specifying "graphic works", {{Countries of the Americas}} links won't work due to different prefix. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm also happy with either, thanks JWilz12345. // sikander { talk } 🦖 02:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
It's actually originated from Jmabel re: "Censored by lack of FOP" category name, which has since been moved. Anyway, a best solution is to add a piece of text indicating that the country has sufficient FoP for Wikimedians' needs but the category is intentionally named as such both for simplicity (since all of these categories are essentially maintenance categories) and for the navtemplate links to work. See, for example, Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP in the Czech Republic. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Agreed. I've moved the category to Category:Images redacted because of lack of FoP in Canada with a note that FoP does apply to 3d and artistic works. cc: Jmabel. // sikander { talk } 🦖 18:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wolf public houses

Delete The members have nothing in common. They just share part of the same name - "wolf". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  •  Keep such name categories are standard on Commons even if not on Wikipedia, see Category:Pubs named after animals and such categories often function similar to DAB pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for that info. There is a reason why Wikipedia does not allow it: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself. For example, a category for unrelated people who happen to be named "Jackson" would be inappropriate." The policy is sound and should be mirrored in Commons. The entire pub name swamp needs to be drained. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    Commons:Category inclusion criteria an essay I wrote a few years ago notes name categories are an exception to the Wikipedia rule but that essay doesn't appear to have a huge amount of consensus ot at least that part so it might be better to see if there is a consensus on this perhaps at the village pump or a larger CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    But we have Category:Jackson (given name) and Category:Jackson (surname). Aren't those categories for people who happen to be named "Jackson"? Maybe human names are a special case, though. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Former hotels and pubs

Claims to be an intersection category, but if so then Category:Former hotels and Category:Former pubs should be its parents, not its children. As it stands, it is a union category, and we don't do those. Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think it is a terminology issue of Joshbaumgartner's part, who authored COM:Intersectional categories. Otherwise, I prefer calling it a "union category". And of course, this category should be converted into a dab page per Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Hotels and pubs in Australia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that some hotels are mainly pubs or are both (so there is overlap) but some hotels are mainly houses such as country house hotels. I'm not sure if this category should be kept or not though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    If some hotels are mainly pubs, such entities can be put under both hotel and pub categories instead of the union "hotels and pubs" category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Roof windows

It's not clear why this is a disambiguation category and not a simple parent category.

Convert into a broad-concept category per nom. Category:Football and related category names were previously dab pages before being converted into broad-concept categories covering different types of football. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Home & Family

This is not helpful in navigating anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird how it's both a subcat and parent cat of the category for Cristina Ferrare. If all we have for it is the people who were associated with it, I don't think we need the category. English Wikipedia doesn't even have a logo image. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a common pattern of category misuse in categories about film and TV programs - performers are categorized under shows they appeared in, and shows are categorized under their performers. Neither relationship is appropriate - Commons categories aren't Wikidata, nor are they IMdb; not all information about entities needs to be presented as a category. Omphalographer (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tattletales

Is this useful for navigation? What is included seems virtually random. Betty White appeared on a lot of game shows. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Keep en:Tattletales would suggest that this is a WP:notable subject, thus justifiable as a Commons category. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but we could make innumerable categories about notable topics that have no media actually about them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on similar others, I think it can be deleted.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
 Delete. No freely licensed content about the TV series appears to be available on Commons; this category is being used as a coatrack for tangentially related materials, like categories for people who appeared on the show or photos of the building it was once filmed in. Omphalographer (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian folklore

This category has in its description: "Do not merge it with categories Folklore of Hungary and/or Hungarian folk nor with Ethnography of Hungary (which may be merged?)." However this makes it an outlier compared to all other categories in Category:Folklore by country. What warrants making an exception? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this should not be a separate category. We have Category:Folk culture of Hungary (which I would think is the broadest on this topic, and possibly some of what is here should be upmerged there) and Category:Folklore of Hungary (which seems to me indistinguishable from "Hungarian folklore" in meaning). - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree to merge to Folklore of Hungary. If I have to guess, it seems that some editor intended these two categories to for folklore inside and outside of Hungary (i.e. in diaspora and Hungarian minorities in surrounding countries). However this is not clearly understandable from the name or description of these categories, and the difference is imho not possible to maintain in the long run. Hungarian culture abroad and its subcategories is clearer and more useful to make this distinction. Place Clichy 16:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
As far as the categorisation goes any creative suggestion is of course welcomed, but as Hungarian I don't agree already with SOME of the proposed merging (one voice of course cannot represent a whole nation). Guys, in my experience cathegorizing on this platform usually takes a LOT of preparation by LOT of people so just take it easy and be careful. Before grand (or should I say blind) decision-making, would be wise to do a little background study: about HALF of the Hungarian nation leaves outside Hungary, spread all over the surrounding countries. Just in Romania about a million, where I live in Serbia, about 250.000 and so on. So to say, historically, that the folklore of all these people IS the folklore of Hungary... would at least be weird. As it would be similarly weird to call the numerous Hungarian minorities in Romania just "folklore of Romania" (although IT IS also, that is why it is a crossing and conflicting category). So uncautious merging would possibly lead to geographic, historic and specifically ethnographic inconsistency. Keep in mind that these kind of decisions affect the search by a lot broader group of people – not just Hungarians, but the users of this platform from all over, who trust this source as somehow scientifically coherent. So, as with any changes, it needs to be done with care and possibly by a person with some insight.–Jozefsu (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
To be more practical – I don't have a full answer on how this should be dealth with, but maybe the placing of different categories at same page does the job. Such as "Folklore of Romania" and "Hungarian folklore" (note: this alredy implies BOTH are needed) at a page where we deal, specifically, with Hungarian minorities in Romania. THEN people will immediately understand what we want to present - it's not a rocket science. By the way: do the mergers fully understand the logic behind any cathegorisation: the MORE is the better – and I don't mean a mess of inappropriate categories. It's ok to be specific, but it's also ok to be diverse, right? (And, just a sidenote: not to mention how mish-mashing all Hungarians - both in country and abroad - helps the modern minority respecting movement :) Doesn't these kind of decisions resonate also with the nowadays so popular fight for even the smallest self-identified community? Should we disrispect anybody or should we lead with good example? Although I meant to be sarcastic, it is by no means inappropriate to ask, because this question corresponds to so many similar categories on this platform.)–Jozefsu (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Books about the European exploration of Africa

I am well aware of the PC reason why we chose the category title to be "Books about the European exploration of Africa".

But we should consider the category title to be the broader Category:Books about exploration of Africa, since Asian and American explorers are currently excluded, not to forget African explorers themselves. Yes, most books in the category will still be those written by Europeans like they are now. On the other hand, in the "Books about exploration" we have now also books about the exploration of other continents (Australia, North and South America, Arctic/Antarctic and I could imagine that Asia might get one too), and those are not tied as strongly to Europeans.

While the "European exploration of the world" is a colonialist trope that people must stay aware of, I don't think we should discrimate against other explorers from other continents. Please also note the missing "the" in the suggested category name: There was "the" European exploration of Africa with its peak between 1850s and 1910s; and there is "exploration" in general, potentially even today. Cheers, -- Enyavar (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

 Support renaming the category to broaden its scope. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kreuz und quer: given that you just created Category:Books about exploration of Africa, I assume you also support this idea. Are we going to finish the job? --Enyavar (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As long as Category:Books about exploration of Africa exists, I don't have strong feelings either way. Since there's a parallel European subcat under Category:Exploration of Africa, I don't think it's necessary to change anything, especially considering the category size. But if someone wants to rename it, I won't get in the way. --Kreuz und quer (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Women in the military

Rename this category to Category:Military women, in consistent with Category:Military men. Also, we have both "women in the X-ian military" and "military women of X" under this category, which should be fixed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Walking to the Sky

The photos of the 2004 sculpture in the category appear to violate copyright given U.S. law on public sculptures. Sdkb talk 17:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to list individual files for deletion, the category is just for the sculpture in general, especially for those situated in FOP countries.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes there is no problem with the category, if it is emptied then it will get deleted but otherwise given there is an article on Wikipedia its unlikely the category will be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lion Capital of Ashoka at Wat Umong Suan Phutthatham

I think the name needs to be shortened Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose — Category names are not meant to be shortened. The current name correctly implies that there's a Lion Capital of Ashoka at a temple in Thailand called "Wat Umong Suan Phutthatham". Any attempts to shorten it will distort the meaning. I have created categories of road junctions using very long names, because I can't find reliable local names for such junctions, like Category:Biresh Guha Street-Darga Road-J. B. S. Haldane Avenue-Mother Teresa Sarani Junction in Kolkata, India. Removing any part of this name for sake of "shortening" it will imply that the road name removed does not meet at the junction, which is not the case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of clothing

What is the difference between Category:Paintings of clothing and Category:Clothing in paintings? If there is no difference, should they be merged? Thanks! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I know what I think a good difference would be, but they're not set up that way.
  • Paintings of clothing would be paintings where the clothing is the focal point, or at least not incidental. It might also include painting details that focus on items of clothing, such as File:Portrait du Grand Dauphin, détail (bgw17 1066).jpg, which focuses on the shoes in a portrait painting.
  • Clothing in paintings would be for any paintings that show clothing; that would be a lot of paintings.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fixed redundant renamings by Immanuelle

user requested deletion Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Not empty. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Immanuelle Category is no longer empty? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Immanuelle, as the category is no longer empty. Can anything be done here? Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videos of urination in animals

Category:Videos of urination in animals was split from Category:Videos of urination to distinguish it from Category:Videos of urination in humans.

But humans are also animals, so this category, this category, this category, and this category are unnecessary and redundant. Should they be merged back into the categories that they were split from? Jarble (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jarble:  Comment — The problem is that I made a proposal to make a distinction between humans and animals at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Animals and I had even closed it as a bold implementation. But I later changed my stance and gone to the "humans are animals" stance, since Category:Homo sapiens (humans) is under Category:Homo, which is a genus of Category:Animalia, so it is hard to make a distinction between humans and animals while adhering to the Universality Principle. Anyway, there might be videos of urination in plants or fungi, which can be distinguished from animals without compromising the Commons policies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: Videos of urination in plants or fungi probably do not exist. Are animals not the only organisms that excrete urine? Jarble (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jarble: Oh, the name of the category is Category:Videos of urination in animals, not Category:Videos of urination on animals! Sorry for misunderstanding the prepositions. And yes, this category should be done away with, as animals (including humans) are the only organisms that excrete urine and faeces. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest a new structure, with some renaming. I'm going with the premise that only animals (including humans) urinate.
Videos of urination
Videos of urination in Mammalia Videos of urinating mammals
Videos of urinating in humans Videos of urinating humans
Videos of urinating men
Videos of urinating women (with its subcat)
Category:Videos of urination in animals would be merged to Category:Videos of urination as needed and then either deleted or redirected. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Navy blue, red, white sailor fuku in cosplay

Cosplay doesn't have to be categored by the color of the clothes Thyj (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Navy blue and white sailor fuku in cosplay

Cosplay doesn't have to be categored by the color of the clothes Thyj (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:LEN Ligue Européenne de Natation

duplicate of Category:LEN. These 2 categories should be merged. Robby (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robby: I suggest merging them into a category with the organizations current name: European Aquatics. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Images and videos depicting intentional intermixing of (related) realities

Can be renamed to just Category:Intentional intermixing of realities, without the use of intersectional "images and videos" and the parenthesis "(related)", both of which are usually considered redundant in category names. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Concur. If we need it at all. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this category should exist. I think I understand the concept the creator was trying to go for here, but it's too abstract and fuzzy to make for a good Commons category. Omphalographer (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Gothenburg Central Station

This category used to be named Category:Göteborgs centralstation, but was renamed almost ten years ago "to align with the English Wikipedia article". However, our main category for the city is called Category:Göteborg, and most of its subcategories also use the Swedish name; this is one of very few categories to use the English name Gothenburg. Surely internal consistency within Commons is more important? I fail to see why we should use a (probably unofficial) English name for one train station if we have decided to use the local name for the city where it is located. ACo2c (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We should be consistent. This gives the impression that Göteborg and Gothenburg are two different places Rathfelder (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Category:CfD 2024-11