Category:Mayors of the United Kingdom by town

Historically these were town mayors, but many (e.g. Dudley) now serve metropolitan boroughs. Compare Category:Mayors of Sandwell.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This category started of as "Mayors of the United Kingdom". This could perhaps be broken down into "Mayors of England", "Mayors of Northern Ireland" etc. Bearing in mind the way local government goes through various forms, to have them sorted by specific by specific forms is perhaps something better handled by wikidata as this would enable the claim to be modified by beginning and end dates in a straight forward way unsuitable for Wikipdeia itself. Leutha (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lanz tractors

Too many subcategories. Some categories included one file Medyanowsky (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The subcats seem to be for different models. There are a lot of files directly in the main category. Maybe we could move as many as we can to the subcats and see how it looks then? -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videos of the 1900s

No videos were made in the 1900s. Wouldnt it be more helpful to merge these intoCategory:1900s films? Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically I agree. BUT: Linguistically there has been a generational shift, with people who grew up in the digital era commonly calling all moving images "video". As the term "video" seems to have been coined in the late 1930s as a parallel to "audio" for visual media (from Latin "I see") using it as a general term does not seem inherently wrong. Also, film moving pictures or whatever original format have to be converted to a digital video format to be on Commons. So I think the issue is broader than this one category: Should "Video" be the umbrella category for all moving images on Commons? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:National Socialism

The category name "National Socialism" may cause confusion due to the broad meaning of "socialism" in political theory, which is not specific to the ideology of the Nazi Party. "Nazism" is a more accurate and widely recognized term, used in both academic and general contexts to specifically refer to Hitler's ideology. It is concise, intuitive for users to search, and aligns with Commons' guidelines on naming, which prioritize common usage, clarity, and accuracy. The term "Nazism" is the dominant term in media, scholarly sources, and encyclopedias like Britannica, making it the more appropriate choice for the category. Nebula84912 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see (in Germany) that "Nazism" or "Nazismus" (German) is significantly widespread or correct. I find the short form unnecessary and trivializing. In my opinion, the short form distracts and obscures National Socialism. Please stick to the long form. --XRay 💬 19:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

In English-language academic, media, and historical contexts, "Nazism" is the widely accepted and standard term for referring to the ideology of the Nazi Party. It is not viewed as trivializing the topic but as a precise and widely recognized term.

Commons follows the principle of using terms that are most widely recognized and commonly used in English, as outlined in Commons:File naming and Commons:Categories guidelines. This approach helps maintain clarity and consistency for a global audience. While I respect that in Germany, "National Socialism" may be the preferred term, in the context of English-language categories, "Nazism" aligns with established conventions. This is a continuation of this discussion. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Info this CfD is a continuation of the discussion on the category's talk page: . Nakonana (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Nakonana, I will respond here to your comment. Nazism is considered a distinct German ideology that became widely known as with such term, while movements after the war should be categorized more accurately as neo-Nazism or neo-fascism, depending on the exact characteristics of their ideologies.

• Neo-Nazism refers to post-WWII movements that are a continuation of the Nazi ideology, including its racial policies and other core elements, like anti-Semitism and Aryan supremacy.
• Fascism during WWII was the political ideology of the regimes like Mussolini's Italy and others, which shared some characteristics with Nazism but didn't necessarily adopt the Nazi racial policies (i.e., they didn't focus on the idea of Aryan supremacy or racial purity as the Nazis did).
• Neo-fascism, emerging after WWII, refers to modern-day movements that embrace authoritarian, ultra-nationalist ideologies, but without necessarily adopting the specific racial doctrines of Nazi Germany.

Regarding communism, the term predates the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and even Marx. It derives from the Latin word communis, meaning "common," and has evolved over time. However, Nazism is not just an abstract ideology; it specifically refers to the policies of the Nazi Party, particularly its racial and anti-Semitic doctrines. While other ideologies, like fascism, share some characteristics with Nazism, Nazism is most closely associated with the Nazi Party's unique and extreme racial doctrines.

Also, subcategories don’t need to be 100% identical to the parent category. They just need to be related. The purpose of subcategories is to group related pages and media under broader themes or ideologies. For instance, while the term Nazism may specifically refer to the Nazi Party's ideology in Germany, subcategories like Neo-Nazism or Nazism in Other Countries can be used to categorize related but distinct ideologies that share some elements with the original but are not entirely the same. The key is ensuring that they are linked by common themes or characteristics. (Commons:Categories) Nebula84912 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC).

Nazism is considered a distinct German ideology — ok, but is the category you want to be renamed also about the German ideology? If "Category:National Socialism" is about the German "Nazism" ideology then why are "Category:National Socialism in Germany" and "Category:Nazi Germany" subcategories of it instead of being parent categories? How can there be German Nazism outside of Germany? National Socialism" may cause confusion due to the broad meaning of "socialism" in political theory, which is not specific to the ideology of the Nazi Party. Why would it cause confusion? If people can distinguish between "capitalism" and "industrial capitalism" then why should they be unable to distinguish between "socialism" and "national socialism" and "nationalism"? "Socialism" doesn't have to be specific to ideology of the German Nazi party. National Socialism is a sub-form of socialism just like industrial capitalism is a sub-form of capitalism. German Nazism is then a German specific sub-form of national socialism. Nakonana (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

National Socialism is not a sub-form of socialism. It is a form of Fascism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I've read a little bit about this in college, but from what I remember there was the National Socialist German Workers' Party before the war. People started using "Nazi" in the late 20s as a derogatory term for people who were members of the Nationalist Socialist party. I think that was in the early or mid 20s. It really didn't become ubiquitous until WW2, at which point it was used for anyone from Germany. Although German's didn't call themselves Nazis. Since again, it was derogatory. Then after WW2 it become what it is today.

So how exactly does that apply here? This category should be gotten rid of since Category:National Socialist German Workers' Party already exists and the categories currently in this should be moved there. Whereas, Category:Nazi should be used for everything during and after WW2. Generally though, it's a misnomer to call prewar Germans Nazis or to label everyone who fought for Germany during WW2 a National Socialist. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912, thank you for open the disk page. Category renaming is a process, that are in some cases are not done in some days, so this is the right way. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 04:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. While not all Wehrmacht soldiers may have been members of the NSDAP, the institution as a whole was deeply involved in supporting Nazi objectives and was implicated in war crimes. The Wehrmacht, as the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1945, operated under a command structure with Adolf Hitler at its apex.

The Wehrmacht coordinated with Nazi mobile death squads, such as the Einsatzgruppen, facilitating mass shootings of Jews and other targeted groups. Additionally, Wehrmacht units directly participated in atrocities, including the massacre of civilians and prisoners of war. The Wehrmacht also played a role in enforcing Nazi racial policies, contributing to the persecution and deportation of Jews and other minorities.

There has been a narrative of the "clean Wehrmacht," suggesting that the regular army was uninvolved in Nazi atrocities. However, this claim has been widely questioned and debunked by extensive historical research. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the term "Nazi" initially started as a derogatory term. After the NSDAP assumed power in 1933, the use of "Nazi" declined within Germany, as the regime and its supporters preferred formal titles like "National Socialists." However, the term persisted among political opponents. Following World War II, "Nazi" became the standard term in English and other languages to describe members of the NSDAP and the associated ideology. This shift occurred as former party members were no longer in power, and the term became widely used in historical and academic contexts. It became standard terminology almost immediately after the war. The Nuremberg Trials, which began in late 1945, involved extensive documentation referring to "Nazi" affiliations and actions. Additionally, the U.S. Department of State's Foreign Relations of the United States series includes documents discussing the eradication of Nazism from German legislation and the liquidation of the Nazi Party. Nebula84912 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I can certainly agree with the view that National Socialism (history) and Nazism (ideology) are different things. --XRay 💬 09:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We should stick to the original name, it is the official term. So why rename a category that is correctly named? Yes, in some countries a different spelling is preferred, but that shouldn't be the point here. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want you to misunderstand me. I am not in favor of the renaming. We should consider whether different things should be handled differently. --XRay 💬 11:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@זיו「Ziv」 The term "National Socialism" was the official designation used by the NSDAP to define its political ideology and movement. However, in English-language scholarship and common usage, "Nazism" has become the standard term. It appears in official U.S. and British documents and was formally used during the Nuremberg Trials. A search for "Nazism" and "National Socialism" in academic databases such as Google Scholar shows that "Nazism" yields significantly more results, reflecting its widespread acceptance in scholarly discourse. Additionally, Wikimedia Commons is an international platform, not a German-specific one. According to its policies, English takes precedence in category naming due to its international status. Therefore, Commons policy itself dictates that this should be the deciding factor in this discussion.

@XRay, do most academics and historians view National Socialism as a historical movement and Nazism as its ideological framework, distinguishing between the two? Nebula84912 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but unfortunately I don't know. --XRay 💬 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912, just to clarify, this has absolutely nothing to do with being German-specific. I would agree with you, if it is written in German, it is not, the English word is used. Even if a short form is established in some countries, that should not be weighted here. We all just say VW and not Volkswagen and yet the category on Commons is not called VW, it's called Category:Volkswagen. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, but given that "Nazism" is the more commonly used and widely accepted term in academic sources, official documents, and encyclopedias, could you clarify why you believe the less common term should be prioritized here?

"In Germany we don't say Nazism but National Socialism" appeals to German linguistic practice, but our discussion centers on English usage. Since Commons operates in English, it's more relevant to consider the term as used in English-language sources.

The claim that "Nazism is just a short form" and that Commons should use the "official" term suggests that "National Socialism" is preferable. However, in English, "Nazism" is widely recognized and extensively used in academic literature, official documents, and encyclopedias. This contradicts the idea that it’s merely an informal abbreviation.

The statement "We should stick to the original name, it is the official term" implies that "National Socialism" is the original or formal term in English. In reality, while it is the full name of the ideology, the dominant term used in English has been "Nazism" for decades. This usage is reflected in both scholarly and formal records. Roosevelt called Nazis as such. Churchill didn't use "National Socialism" once when he wrote Hitler's Reign of Terror, he used "Nazism" and "Nazi". And he also used the term "Nazism" in his speeches like in the opening of his speech of June 12, 1941.

The analogy comparing VW (Volkswagen) to Nazism is flawed. Abbreviating a brand name is different from the evolution of ideological terminology. While it's true that we use "VW" for convenience, this doesn't parallel how terms like "Nazism" develop and become standardized in academic and official contexts. VW is not used in formal discussion in reputable sources, Nazism is widely used in formal reputable sources. Could you clarify the reasoning further? Nebula84912 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: I was just looking through the subcategories and it looks like a lot of them don't belong there to begin with. Like Category:Todesmarsch, which really doesn't have anything to do with National Socialism per se outside of generally having to do with Germany during WW2. Anyway, you might look through the category and remove everything that isn't directly related to National Socialism. I wouldn't be supprised if nothing is left afterwards. A lot of these overly broad categories for ideologies just get used as dumps for random files that ultimately have nothing to do with them.

That's why I said things specificially related to Category:National Socialist German Workers' Party should just be moved there and this category should be deleted. There's zero point in having the category or this conversation if most, or all, of what's in the category is just stuff to do with Germany during WW2 more generally, but not specifically National Socialism. Otherwise it's like putting everything having to do with the United States in a category for capitalism. That's not how categorizing files work. My guess is that the category is, or will be, totally pointless once the files in it are categorized better though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1, Todesmarsch refers to the death marches during the Holocaust. That topic already has a designated category: Category:Death marches (Holocaust), which is a subcategory of Category:Forced marches. Content about forced marches unrelated to Nazi Germany should be placed under Category:Forced marches, while all content related to Nazi Germany should be moved to its corresponding category. And the correct term in English is death march, the category Category:Forced marches also should renamed.

"putting everything having to do with the United States in a category for capitalism" In the hypothetical case that we create a category called "Category:Capitalist countries" or "Category:Countries with capitalist systems", which would be a subcategory of "Category:Capitalism", and we place "Category:United States" under this new category, then everything related to the United States would ultimately fall under "Category:Capitalism" due to its hierarchical structure.

However, Industrial capitalism is generally attributed to Adam Smith, meaning that "Industrial Capitalism" should be a subcategory of both "Category:Capitalism" and "Category:Adam Smith". Consequently, the category for capitalist or industrial capitalist countries should also be a subcategory of "Industrial Capitalism."

To comply with Commons:Categories, and to prevent unrelated categories in Category:United States from being grouped under Capitalism, we should create a category called "Economic System of the United States" or "Capitalism in the United States." This would ensure that these categories are properly placed under the appropriate category for capitalist countries.

Nazi-related topics not directly tied to the specific period of Nazi Germany, meaning those from the post-Nazi Germany era, are typically associated with Neo-Nazism. This category already exists. For things directly related to Nazi Germany there is the Category:Nazi Germany. Works from the post-war period about Nazi Germany, however, are still related to Nazi Germany and should be placed in the corresponding category, similar to how it is organized on Wikipedia. Both the Category:Nazi Germany and Category:Neo-Nazism are subcategories of Category:Nazism, which complies with the guidelines outlined in Commons:Categories. Items related to Nazi Germany should go into the Category:Nazi Germany, while items not directly related to Nazi Germany but still associated with Nazism should be placed under the Category:Nazism. If these items require a more specific category, we can create a subcategory under Nazism to organize them accordingly. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think most English speakers associate National Socialism with Nazism. Looking through HathiTrust, I find that hard search numbers are meaningless, as it conflates "Nazism" with "Nazis", but a look at the titles reveals that "National Socialism" in titles of modern English language works tends to indicate German authors and/or works translated from German, and that many major presses have used Nazism in titles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Salerni (Galleria delle carte geografiche)

This can be deleted, as it's now an (empty) redirect to the correctly named category. PGS 1984 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@PGS 1984: Do you think the disambiguation category Category:Salerni will still be needed (with the entry updated)? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Parliament of Malawi

Superseded by both Category:Parliament buildings in Malawi (for buildings where the Malawi legislature convened) and Category:National Assembly (Malawi) for the parliament itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Universum Film AG

This Category seems to have the same topic as the Category "UFA - Universum Film AG" Category:UFA - Universum Film AG ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=609543510 ). The latter has more content. But this Category has only one picture, and it is the logo of another company, the Universum Film GmbH, not Universum Film AG. File:Universum_Film_GmbH_logo.svg

Futher more this Category is connected to the wikidata item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41468 . But the Category with more content isn't directly connected to Q41468.

This category here seems to be totally unnecessary. OleDrei (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Aiserushura-hall

Should be called AICEL Shura Hall since that is the official name Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cebu–Cordova Link Expressway

Move to Category:Cebu-Cordova Link Expressway, in accordance with Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/10#Dashes in category names (hyphens preferred for category names on Wikimedia Commons). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

To add, category page can't be moved because of existing redirect. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Knight Cantons of the Holy Roman Empire

Sind die Ritterkantone und die unmittelbare Reichsritterschaft wirklich identisch? Oder sind das zwei Paar Schuhe? GerritR (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Events in Italy by region by year

These types of "by year" categories are useful to a point. It becomes a little obtuse and unnecessary in instances like this where the category involves 4 different subjects and all the subcategories only contain other categories. Apparently the files in the last subcategories don't have anything to do with events either. Like this image, which is three subcategories down, doesn't depict an event. From what I can tell, Most or all of the files in the subcategories have nothing to do with events. Plus they are already in multiple "by year" categories besides these ones anyway.

So all the categories for years before say 1960 should be gotten rid of. As well as most, or all, of their subcategories depending on if there's actually files for events in them. As it currently stands though this whole thing is a needless exercise in clicking through multiple subcategories to get to a couple of files that have nothing to do with events. And the only solution seems to be deleting a lot of the categories involved in it. That is unless someone has a better solution. But I don't think most of the categories are worth keeping since they don't contain images of events to begin with anyway.

(Pinging people who were involved in a similar discussion @SergeWoodzing: , @Jmabel: , @Nakonana: , @Enyavar: , @Taylor 49: , {{ping| Nosferattus}}, @Prototyperspective: , @MGA73: ) Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it seems to be too much here. If there was a big event in Rome for example it could be placed in "19xx events in Italy" and "Events in Rome" for example. If some years or regions have more than 1000 events it could perhaps be split up in year. --MGA73 (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The linked image may not depict an event (whatever depicting an event would even look like) but it is about an event (in the broader sense of the word "event"). 1960 also seems to be a too recent cut-off date. There surely were some events in the 1950s, 1940s, etc. Nakonana (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm massively in favor of some by-year-category structures, but a lot of them really make little sense. If maintained properly, this category ought to be full to the brim with categories for each year and each region. Cities and buildings were founded and destroyed, battles were fought, peace was made, notable people were born and killed. However, most of these categories are unlikely to ever get proper maintenance, but they complicate everything with their granular structure.

Check out Category:1454 in Lodi (Italy), it has two subcategories that both host the same event - once by month, once by events. At the current stage of development of the category tree, "1454 in Italy" and "History of Lodi (Italy)" seem sufficient. I'm not sure what was originally in Category:Lodi (Italy) by year where half the categories are empty, but I see that those are the remains of actions like with this file, a plaque on a church that refers to the founding dates of its Parish. Those are relevant dates/years, but I don't think Commons should build a structured-data model with categories. If anything, we should build a structured data model with structured data (and make it easier to enter SD, which is currently a real hassle).

That actually reminds me also of Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:1066 in the United States - the content of the debate cat only has a single file with tree rings. That file ought to be placed in 842 categories, one category for each year of the tree's proven existence... or how about none of them. --Enyavar (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes this seems excessive; I don't know just how much it should be peeled back, but a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Categories "by year" are a horrifying nuisance when they destroy effective image searches by subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support Criticism against this type of overcat. When searching for a subject, I rarely exactly know when the gadget was painted, built or brewed, and I very rarely appreciate brute-forcing through gazillions of by-year-cats. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hallo everyone, the reason why I am "overcategorizing" is that I am cataloguing a dump of thousands and thousands of files that have been vomited into WikiCommons with not a single category (not even "Files needing category", such as coins from Italy and opera libretti from Italy. In both cases, splitting them makes sense, because we had different states in Italy with different artistic schools and different monetations depending upon town, and we had of course different years. However, there are instances when such files are from very small theatres and cities, not worth a special city category, so I categprize them by Region rather than by town, waiting to have enough file to deserve a category of their own. Since many files are not categorized, I cannot know in advance how many of them there are. I keep searching by changing keywords, and I see what I get. Some categories my look empty today, but in 6 months could be crowded.
I read the criticism about categories "by year" "destroying the search by subject" and I disagree. This point would make sense if I destroyed existing categories and split them in 100, but I am actually creating most categories "ex novo", and, first we all know everybody can categorize in different ways in order to add different accesses, second, I am not categorizing the files by year only, but also by place, artistic style, author, etc.
Here is an example of how I found a file, in this case, searching the name of the librettist, Giovanni Bertati. File:University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill_(IA_dgiovannitenorio305bert).pdf: I did not touch it, son that you can see the situation, but in this case my categories would be: Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati; Category:Operas by Giovanni Gazzaniga, Category:Don Giovanni Tenorio, Category:1789 opera libretti, Category:Operas at Teatro degli Intrepidi, Category:Books in Italian, Category:1789 opera libretti, and eventually the category that is making Adamant furious: Category:1789 music in Florence. How is that cataloguing by year operas performed in 18th century Florence makes it "difficult" to "enjoy" the categories? Especially in consideration of the fact that none of these categories existed before. You can find the book by composer, by librettist, by title, by theatre, by printing year, by language. Why this obsession on the fact that you can also find it by year?
I can understand that some people like to use Commons as if it were Instagram, as an unsorted blob of nice pictures to scroll. There is no "correct" use of WikiCommons, any use is correct. If Adamant wants pages after page each with 200 librettos of any years together, I have no difficulty in adding an overall category, for instance Category:Libretti (or Librettos), or Category:Books, so that he can scroll for thousands and thousands of book covers, which must be a really entertaining experience. The "dirty work" of categorizing is much automated (copy-paste-correct details), therefore adding a "blob category" such as "books" costs me nothing, if you ask me to do it, I'll do it. Deal!
Here is another example of my "overcategorising": this time it is a coin. Again, I did not touch it, I left it with zero categories as I found it. File:Monnaie - Italie, République de Florence, 1-2 écu, 1530, - btv1b11312577n (1 of 2).jpg. If I had categorized it I would have used, Category:Coins of the Repubic of Florence (it does not exist yet, I'd have had to create it) Category:Ecu and eventually, my "overcategorisation": Category:1530 in Florence or else Category:Coins minted in Florence in 1530. Shall I add a Category:Coins in the future to prevent the page from being too "granular"? No problem: we can agree and I'll do it. To me, this is the true, redundant categorization, however, I repeat, there is no "correct" way to watch WikiCommons. I see it as a research tool, where historical files need to be, first of all, put in chronological, topological, typological order. But other people are entitled to look for a different, more "Instagram-like" experoence.
So let's find a compromise in order to allow historians and researchers to use WikiCommons and find it useful, but also people to just skip through the pictures looking for "cute pics". My best regards. Giovanni Dall'Orto.

Post scriptum: re: the criticism in the first line (the first hot air balloon ascended in Milan ever NOT being an event), I suspect that we have different clues about what "event" means. Not being an English speaker myself, I checked on the Oxford dictionary, which says:

1) "A thing that happens or takes place, especially one of importance".
"the momentous political events of the late 1980s"
2) "A planned public or social occasion".
"staff have been holding a number of events to raise money for charity"
3) "Each of several particular contests making up a sports competition."
"he repeated the success in the four-lap, 600 cc event"

So, yes, it was an event indeed (point 1). However I suspect that for Adamant an "event" is something related to entertainment only. If so, there is no need for us to dispute. We could agree to move entertainment events and non-entertainment event in two distinct categories.
Again, my best greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.dallorto (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Why this obsession on the fact that you can also find it by year? Because for a category like Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati it contains four subcategories and 2 files. Compare that to a category like Category:1803 events in Italy by region where there's a single subcategory, with a single subcategory, with a single subcategory, with a single subcategory for music when music isn't even an event to begin with. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a category like Category:1803 events in Italy by region if it was created after the 6 subcategories were filled with images. But your doing the whole thing completely backwards and creating a bunch of nested categories that are impossible to browse thorough and don't contain anything related to the top parent category anyway. At the end of the day a bunch of nested subcategories within subcategories, within subcategories that are only slightly related to each other doesn't serve anyone. Know one looks for Opera's by Giovanni Bertati based on the year and region of creation and categories don't exist to be stores of meaningless facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that for Adamant an "event" is something related to entertainment only. Not really. I tend to categorize things based on how ones for similar subjects are categorized. With Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati specifically, categories for other operas don't seem to be in categories for events. The top level category for operas, Category:Operas, isn't in one either from what I can tell. So it doesn't make sense to put Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati in a category for events when no other operas are categorized that way. Category:Music isn't a subcategory of one for events either BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two types of libretto prints. The first type is clearly related to an event. These prints are comparable to program books. But there also exist later prints from music publishers which are not related to a specific production. Only the first type of files might be categorized below an event category. Opera or libretto categories themselves should never be categorized as event. --Rodomonte (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lambadi People

Is Lambadi/Lambani not synonymous with Banjara, i.e. Category:Banjara people? Sinigh (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As per many sources online they have been termed similar to Banjara and on the same lines if we stretch the definition they can also be synonymous with Romani people.

Anyway Lambadis are the term by which they are known in the Deccan area i.e. parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Tamil Nadu etc. and Banjaras are the term they are associated with in North India.

So there is a subtle difference between Lambadis and Banjaras. (i.e in North India they are generally called as Banajaras and in South India they are generally known as Lambadis)

The most right thing to do (i.e. as per my opinion) will be if any person from that community comes forward and makes the right decision rather than people from another communities deciding how to categorise them. Thanks and Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Minimal wisdom of philosophy

This category seems largely synonymous with its (recent) founder Category:Kmal Eleanz; I'm not sure it makes sense to have a separate category without media which distinguishes between the two. Omphalographer (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Prints

Going by the text in the head this category is about "the process of making artworks by printing...each called a 'print." But there's also Category:Printmaking and Category:Printing. Then throw Category:Printed media of top of it. It's not really clear what the difference between the four categories is. As they all seem to be about "the process of making artworks by printing" and/or printed media. So I think they all need to be better defined and/or merged into each other somehow. Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the main problems here are poorly categorized files and maybe some of the hat text. Some related categories (but not these in particular) may need better placement in the tree.

• Category:Printing is the broadest, covering both technology and product, where the latter can be printed fabric; books, magazines, etc.; or works of art. I'd guess few, if any, images really belong directly in this category.
• Category:Printmaking (under Category:Printing) specifically excludes books, magazines, pamphlets, etc. except insofar as they involve illustrations that could be considered prints in their own right. Examples of the exception to the inclusion: some high-end art magazines actually include prints in the proper sense bound in or affixed to pages; some zines are produced by art print techniques rather than conventional ways of producing printed matter. Direct inclusion in this category should be about process, not product.
• Category:Prints (under Category:Printmaking) should be strictly about product, individual prints.
• Category:Printed media is about product. I would say it should exclude printed cloth, etc., but include both prints and books, magazines, etc. I see that it is currently under Category:Printed objects, which is in turn under Category:Printing, and that seems correct.

Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Flags

The organization of this family of categories is a mess, and I'd like to address that by reorganizing it around the themes:

• Category:Flags by subject should be the parent for most categories which relate to the entity represented by the flag (e.g. Category:National flags by country, Category:Identity flags, etc). Some existing category structures like Category:Flags by country by subject should be bypassed here; a specific goal should be to make it easier for users to find flags of countries, states, or other locations.

  Note that, while this category currently exists, many of its subcategories are focused on the visual subject matter of the flag, not the subject it represents. Perhaps another name would make this clearer?

• Category:Flags by content should encompass all categories which relate to the visual appearance of a flag, e.g. what colors it contains, what patterns it uses, what symbols it bears, etc. Categories like Category:Flags by color, Category:Flags by shape, or Category:Flags with snowflakes should all be under this hierarchy.
• Category:Photographs of flags should be used for all images which are photographs of a physical flag, rather than the abstract design of a flag. Categories for photographs of specific flags or types of flags, like Category:Miniature flags or Category:Tattered flags, should be subcategories of Photographs.

There's some additional reorganization I'd like to do for local-level flag categories (e.g. are flags "in", "of", or "from" a location?), but I'll bring that up separately.

Anyways, any objections to these categories, or should I proceed?

Omphalographer (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

category:flags by content seems similar to what you propose for category:flags by design and since 'design' in the context of flags tends to indicate that which is described by category:flag construction sheets, perhaps 'content' is a less ambiguous word? Arlo James Barnes 22:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. I've updated my proposal to reflect that. Omphalographer (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer:  Support the proposal as currently proposed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pictures of a drive from Karaağaç but not showing the town

Ambiguous: at the time of writing, this category contains pictures related to two different places called Karaağaç, one in Kandıra, Kocaeli and one in Fethiye, Muğla. I also think Commons should not use this very peculiar type of category. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I came across this mixed bag of what I consider to be useless snapshots that a bot imported. The bot “should have known better”. I thought they were blocking the view to more relevant pictures. Luckily, they had a name in common, so it was easy to put them apart as a group. That I did. I will not shed a tear if the group is deleted. Rearranging the pictures in Kandıra, Kocaeli, Fethiye - Muğla categories I would consider a waste of energy. If that would be the result of a category deletion, I am against that. So in a way I agree with your “I also think Commons should not use this very peculiar type of category.” I would be glad if a thing like “Useless imports by bots that deserve deletion” existed. I see tons of useless imports, but do not want to spend my time on individual deletion requests (partly because on occasion I was surprised by “Keep”-s that were beyond me). Ben benieuwd wat hier gaat gebeuren. Dosseman (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I put in some effort to add proper categories to this handful of files, so as far as I'm concerned, this CfD can be closed as  Delete. And honestly, just because an image looks useless to you, it does not mean it is useless to everyone else. Just leave them where you found them if you are not sure how to categorise; someone else some day will. That's the beauty of crowdsourcing in the Wikiverse. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I can live with the deletion suggestion but disagree with part of your arguments. As it seems I have uploaded (and categorised, grouping and regrouping mine and by others) well over 75000 pictures more than you have, I claim I have a certain experience in coming across rubbish.

I find crowdsourcing can have its benefits, but it is a bit like cleaning the environment: indeed, crowds will spend time cleaning it, but as long as larger crowds throw away their rubbish, we will see the environment getting ever more messy. I looked at the “effort to add proper categories to this handful of files” you exerted and find it impressive. And I noticed the pictures in this set had been untouched for 10 years, no takers for categorising until you came along.

All too often I see large collections of low-grade pictures that are the product of someone who took pictures from a driving a car or spent a few hours taking random pictures in a spot where I spent days to get to know it. Someone may indeed, as you did, identify a car is a Dacia Duster I. Good for you. But I wonder if putting its picture amongst the 380 unassorted pictures in “Rock formations in Turkey” too is anything but increasing the mess in that category. The first thing I saw there was a set of 308 pictures I had categorised as “Göreme seen on the move“ when I found them in the Göreme category. I regularly saw pictures by this photographer who is a good example of what I described as “driving a car or spent a few hours taking random pictures in a spot where I spent days to get to know it.” Maybe not useless, but most wrongly named and of dubious quality. I think the photographer spent one or two days in Cappadocia and took snapshots compulsively. I spent a few months in the area (also taken pictures compulsively, but walking, not hastening in a car). That is the experience why I will take your “Just leave them where you found them if you are not sure how to categorise; someone else some day will. That's the beauty of crowdsourcing in the Wikiverse.” with the grain of salt it in my mind deserves

You seem to be heavily into categorising, which for me is a side-activity to publishing pictures. I saw some recent work by you and did like your recent work on Van Heemskerk (Ja, ik heb alle drie tentoonstellingen bezocht, prachtig). Dosseman (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Some dumb person confuses the "urban" and "rural" parts of a district, village, city, town or whatever, of course both having the same name, therefore rural sights belong in the same-name category as the urban pictures. If there are two different places in Turkey with the same name, that is only a reason to classify the files. By the way I see that there is at least one more Karaagac in Turkey, in the province of Edirne. I get an impression that this guy wants to be the exclusive photographer of Turkey, eliminating pictures by others. It smells there is some commercial interest behind the contributions of this person. 186.175.224.93 03:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. While this may be an accurate description of this group of photos, it's not a category which lends itself to use. All of these photos look like they have geolocations; surely there's some more precise way to describe them, even if it's something broad like Category:Muğla Province? Omphalographer (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lohner GT6 in Graz

Wrong catgeory name Öffis Graz (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The category name of this category is wrong. The tram type was not built by Lohner, but by Simmering-Graz-Pauker. My suggestion for a better overview would be to move the category or rename it into Graz tram type 260. Öffis Graz (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Objects made of glass

Merge to Category:Glassware, as glassware are defined in Wikidata as "objects made of glass, including glass tableware for drinking and serving". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. While the category descriptions don't currently explain it very well, "glassware" is a bit more specific; it primarily encompasses glass objects made for serving food and drink, not any thing made of glass. An object like a window pane or a blown glass sculpture wouldn't be considered glassware, for instance. Omphalographer (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

it primarily encompasses glass objects made for serving food and drink, not any thing made of glass. An object like a window pane or a blown glass sculpture wouldn't be considered glassware, for instance.

Glassware also include Category:Laboratory glassware, by the way. But if glassware only include glass objects for food and drink, then the category should come under Category:Utensils in some way. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I don't think so. Glassware would include drinking glasses, but those are not utensils. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/glassware "objects made of glass"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/glassware "drinking glasses or other objects made of glass"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glassware "articles made of glass"

 Support merging, but i prefer "glass objects". all subcats of Category:Objects by material should be "xx objects". feels more natural to me. RoyZuo (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by gender identity

What's the difference between gender and gender identity? Gender itself is a social construct (identity), while sex is its biological analogue. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Konons family fresco

Also Category:Conon and Family Performing a Sacrifice, a subcat of the above

Konon or Conon? 186.175.224.93 02:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm merging the discussion for Category:Conon and Family Performing a Sacrifice here since the issue is the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Probably a matter of how to transliterate the original Greek Κόνων. English transliterations usually go via Latin, so "Conon". I'll note that on en.wikipedia.org, en:Konon redirects to en:Conon (disambiguation). By the way, is it me or are the two categories duplicates of each other? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Music in Lombardy by year

• Related discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Events in Italy by region by year

Categories for music by year at the regional level like this have their place for modern years. It becomes a super obtuse and unhelpful when the year is in the 17 or 18 hundreds though for a couple of reasons. For one, there just enough files for any given year to justify it. Which is why most (or all) of the categories for the 1700s just contain a single subcategory that contains one file. Also, no one finds music on Commons this way. Which is why there are only a couple of categories in the parent category, Category:Music in Italy by region by year and they were all created by the same user. There certainly isn't "music by country by region by year" for other countries from what I can tell.

I don't have a problem with these categories per se for years in the 1900s since there's at least a chance that the categories will contain enough images at some point to justify it. They are totally pointless for years in the 17 and 18 hundreds though since realistically there will never be enough images on here to justify the categories. Therefore I'm proposing getting of the "by year" categories for the 17 and 18 hundreds. There's no reason what-so-ever that the small amount of images in these categories can't just be organized by the decade or even just not sorted at the regional level like this to begin with. Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: , @Jmabel: , @Nakonana: , @Enyavar: , @Taylor 49: , @Nosferattus: , @Prototyperspective: , and @MGA73: as people who were involved in the other CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support "getting of the "by year" categories for the 17 and 18 hundreds". Taylor 49 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, which borders of "Lombardy" are we talking about exactly, and why would it be categorized under Italy in the first place? It's clearly "Music of Austria" until 1796 and from 1815-1860s. Sure, maybe not "clearly" and I don't demand that change, but the closer we look at definitions, the hotter the topic. Second of all, there is not a single such category for the 1700s yet, so I'd rather think we should debate the by-year categories for the 1730s, 1780s, 1790s.</precise language nitpicking over ;-D >.

Erm, yes I agree that the current structure is very granular for extremely few files for the 18th century: I'm not in favor of keeping an overhead of at least 7 otherwise empty categories for just 2 files buried down at the bottom. Such a ratio should be an exception instead of the rule. However, I also checked the 1800s, 1810s and 1820s: there is more material for example in 1814 music in Milan". If the dating of each file is provably precise and pinpoints music to specific years (I'm not an expert in music history and somehow doubt it, but it's possible?), I would tolerate the by-year by-city categories. If dating is less clear or if there are too few files to support "by-year-cats", I'd rather suggest to sort things by decade instead, making browsing easier.

That last point is because I dislike overhead structures intent on making it difficult to find files via the category tree, especially if their dating is on shaky grounds. On the other hand, the structure seems logically structured and was probably created with the best of intentions to reduce the amount of categories assigned to each file - that is a good cause. On the third hand, this structure is not yet templated, which means it is less rigid and can still be changed case by case. Hmmm.

--> I suggest cutting the regions (Lombardy) out of the picture, but not the "by-year in city" (i.e.  Support): "1814 music in Milan" would be directly in "1814 music in Italy" instead of "in Lombardy", but we'd delete the "art"/"music"/"events" in the Lombardy subcategories. As far as I noticed so far, in some years there are a few exceptional files from Brescia and Pavia (i.e. Lombardy but not Milan), but these are rare and I am not convinced that (although from different nations) the music of Genoa, Florence, Rome and Naples would be categorically different from the music of Lombardy.

Contrary to Adamant's point on "1900s file", I would rather think that the number of files for the 20th century declines sharply instead of going up: 20th-century files can be safely uploaded to Commons only until the 1920s, before Copyright goes rampant. However, 21st-century stuff is tapping different sources and "by year" may be totally fine.
All the best, Enyavar (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with keeping the "music in Milan by year" categories for now. Assuming I understand you correctly, deleting the "art"/"music"/"events" subcategories while keeping the ones specifically for music in Milan and putting them in ones for music in Italy would pretty much resolve this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify regarding "art"/"music"/"events" subcategories: I meant "art in Lombardy by year", "music in Lombardy by year" and "events in Lombardy by year", for the 18-19th century. The equivalent categories about Milan seem okay to me. --Enyavar (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Against. In my opinion what happened is very interesting, because it is a clear case of culture clash between the old generation (I'm 66, 11 years on Wikimedia, half a million edits, thousands and thousands of uploads) and the newer ones. All I need is to read a statement as your sneering about "getting of the "by year" categories for the 17 and 18 hundreds". Tell me that I am dealing with people thinking music history started in the 1990s without telling me. Done. Well, Lombardy was one of the cradles of Western music. Think of Cremona, for instance, think of the Duomo di Milano who used to have a Johann Christian Bach' as his concert master. Think of La Scala (which was founded in late "18 hundred", 1778, yes!) I could make a long list, but I have no doubt that no one would recognize even one name. So, the point is: why, just because you cannot even tell what happened in the "17 and 18 hundred", you think no one else ought to?

As far as I could see, those against these categories consider music just as "entertainment", and want WikiCommons to be just an Instagram for the poor. They want to flick through the pictures of their favourite musical star, in a "seamless" experience unburdened by cultural considerations. On the other hand, being "old school", I consider music as culture, and I use and build Commons as an encyclopedia. Gathering knowledge and organizing it. Am I wrong? When I started, I was not, but times change, and maybe Commons is obsolete, and we should try to be something nice to scroll through, rather than as a boring encyclopedia, a place to find organized knowledge and data.

Notice that I have been, for years, cataloguing by place and date Ancient Greek vases, of Coins of Italy, and the issue never surfaced. But by accident I happened to cross the path of "entertainment", and here is the crowd protesting!

But I know that discussing won't be of much help. You have a different concept of what Commons is about: entertainment, not research, but it is ok. There is no "correct" use for Commons, any use is a correct use. So I want to propose a compromise. Let's take ancient music out of your "events" and "entertainments" and let's put it in a separate category. Or just exclude it from your "events". Let's decide "events" only happened after, say, 1990, and above all, not in Lombardy. Would you be happy, then?

(and no, please do not try to make a fool of me pretending my categorization by year and place disrupts your research about opera libretti who have remained for years totally uncategorized. In case you did not know, search cannot recognize them. They appear in my searches only AFTER I categorized them. Just pick a librettist in the Category:Librettos by librettist (yes, we old farts categorized opera librettos by author, what a stupid and disruptive idea!) and search for his name, and then select "Other media" in the results: You will realize how many pages and pages and pages of files in need of categorization exists within wikiCommons. This is what I am doing. And this is something you could contribute to. I shall appreciate any help from this point of view, because there is a lot still to be done. Best wishes.

User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that concern, and I hope we are all aware of the importance of Italian art, given how Italy is still world-reknowned as the only place within Europe in the 16th-19th century to get a thorough education in the arts. The issue at hand here, is not the precise categorization of works of art in general (please continue your efforts), but whether or not it should be categorized by region+year (additionally to "by city+year" and "by country+year"). I gave my contemplations on the topic above, already; but I also want to point out that the Commons category system is in my eyes ill-equipped to deal with a lot of historical files. It is great to get detailed categories on one hand, yet content "hidden" in deep by-year categories is harder to access and nearly impossible to easily compare with content of just two years apart. We'd need a better and most importantly a simpler system to input structured data for each file, to actually catalogue our content instead of just categorizing it. But afaik, that wish will need more time to get fulfilled. --Enyavar (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Look at this way. If there's "X" amount of files that can go in a by category then create it. I don't really care. Just don't create a bunch of categories that just contain subcats instead of files. Otherwise it becomes a Russian nested doll scenario, where users are forced to repeatedly click through a bunch of categories that eventually leads to a single file that they probably weren't looking for anyway. Categories exist to organize files. That's it. The system doesn't exist purely to create categories for their own sake and/or devoid of any concern of if it helps people find images. Your free to categorize images of Italy the 100s of other ways that exist to do that though. Multiple people have suggested doing it "by decade" or "by century." There's also structured data. All three of those are perfectly fine options. We should be using structured data more anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support - I agree with Adamant1's argument. If by-year categories are to be used at all within Category:Music of Lombardy, they should be restricted to periods with a large number of files. Otherwise we should use by-decade or by-century even. If you want to do more specific date filtering, you can always use the SPARQL query service. Nosferattus (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Support. Overwhelmingly, these just make an extra step to navigate to a category for music in Milan that particular year, which is all we've got. Really, that doesn't seem much different with the more recent years. - Jmabel ! talk 05:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, now I can see where the equivocation was born from. You all speak as if I took already existing categories containing many files, and dismembered then in hundreds of tiny categories. This is not what happened. In creating my chronology, I am taking files that were mostly uncategorized, and creating brand-new categories where none existed, in order to sort them. Adamant accused me to "work backward". It would be so, if I worked by splitting existing categories. But I am building from scratch new categories, then I am putting them together in larger categories, and them I am pouring them into the main category ("Music of Italy"). Of course, when I create them, many are initially sparse. Simply because I haven't found enough files yet. But mine is a work in progress. If it weren't for Adamant all of a sudden being alarmed by the destiny of baroque music in Italy, nobody would have even noticed I was cataloguing it. However, in order to create a chronology, you need one category per year. Because apparently it exists one new year for every year in a chronology: I cannot help.
Yes, of course, I normally start with larger categories, and then I fine tune them. I am currently focusing on Milan (this is why "Lombardy" was brought in this discussion first), but when I find a libretto performed in, say, Bologna, I still add the category for the year, although I do not most of the time create the category itself already, waiting to have enough of them to create at least a decade. This is how I work, nothing was "split", because nothing existed before I did it.
Many times the libretti I am categorizing do not bear theatre name, nor name of composer, nor name of librettist. I add them by physically reading the frontispiece. This means that if you search for them on Commons, you will not find these files. At all. This is why I need some examples to understand your claim of me disrupting your searches. Could you kindly give me a couple examples in which my categorization is an obstacle to your search? Just give me two or three keys to search myself, and help me understand how the fact that they were sorted by year and place makes it harder for you to find them. This will help me to see your point.
Eventually, if your preoccupation is only about recent categories getting torn apart, please be assured I am prepared to agree with you not to touch anything happened after 1945. I can leave it to your categorization methods, because my work is about history. Or if it is the "events" category you want to monopolize, I can delete it from all ancient music events (I can create an "ad hoc" category, such as "Ancient opera performances") and have all these "events" categories deleted. I am open to find a compromise.
However, if you object to the very idea of chronologies, then the discussion cannot be settled here, with Adamant and his little group of friends he called into the debate, but should be discussed on a broader scale, because it affects the whole of WikiCommons. How much big must a category be unless you guys ask for it to be deleted? Ten files? And why ten and not five? And why five and not four? And why four and not four hundred? Was any decision ever taken about the numerosity of a category in order not to be deleted by you? If so, can you address me to it? If not, what is your authority to decide about it? Thank you for considering my points of view.
Post scriptum: no, music from Lombardy could never be called "music from Austria", and not only because in the 16th century and the 17th century cultural influence went more from Italy to Austria than the reverse, but above all because Lombardy was never a part of Austria. Lombardy was ruled by Austria in personal union of the monarch, both when it was the "Duchy of Milan" and after when it was the "Kingdom of Lombardo-Veneto". But it was a separate nation. It had a separate penal code, a separate government, separate coins (whose cataloguing was the endeavour I undertook before devoting myself to librettos: you can look for it here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coins_of_Milan :-) ). So, no, sorry, this objection is not factually correct.

@G.dallorto: Thank you for your hard work getting these files categorized. What would you think about organizing them by decade instead of by year? Nosferattus (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@G.dallorto: I shouldn't have to keep asking you, but it would be cool if you got the point and stopped recreating categories for Lombardy that were already deleted multiple times due to the CfD. The same goes for the "events in Milan by year categories." I told you, categories for music aren't subcategorized in ones for events. It's pointless to do this if G.dallorto is going to just ignore the consensus and repeatedly restore the categories and/or fill them with subcategories that clearly don't fit. I think Jmabel's comment is on point here. This just makes an extra step to navigate to a category for music in Milan. Regardless, G.dallorto you need to stop with the edit waring over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: or @Jmabel: Can one of you either block G.dallorto or at least give him a warning so he gets the point since he clearly doesn't care about this or working collaboratively with other users? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Adamant, deleting categories that are under discussion before an agreement is reached, as you just did, is vandalism, in case you did not know it. (Btw you started the edit war, not me. I never touched any of the postcards you upload. It is you that decided that opera in Milan should not be categorized in chronological order because "I don't like it", which is not a reason).

Re collaboration, I just agreed to change "music in Milan" for opera librettos into "opera performances in Milan" because you wrote that "music is not an event", which I can concede without problems, but of course you did not like it either, because what you want is plainly and simply no chronology on WikiCommons. And you proceeded to delete the categories you disliked before the ongoing discussion reached any conclusion.

In my discussion page you also insist WikiCommons "is not an encyclopedia", therefore it ought not be encumbered with facts "no one is interested in". Who are you to decide what facts other people are interested in?

And who are you to decide Wikipedia is no longer an Encyclopedia? What you are thinking about is Instagram, not WikiMedia. Of course if the majority of the volunteers working here all of a suidden wants Wikimedia to become Instagram, or Youporn, or Facebook, OK, I couldn't help because such is democracy, however, it is not up to you, or to a small group of like-minded people you called here by @, to decide for everyone. This is a matter of policy regarding thousands of categories and volunteers, not you and me, and you can't solve it in two days as you please by forcing your decision and starting to delete somebody else's work.

User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@G.dallorto: What's your actual issue with upmerging things to "by decade" categories besides just grandstanding? It seems like everyone here except for you agrees that the categories should be deleted and/or upmerged. So the categories are going to be deleted regardless of if its done now or once this is closed. So putting everything else aside for now, what's the actual issue with upmerging things to "by decade" categories? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

They are organized by decade already https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_in_Milan_by_decade. User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Then it seems like there's no issue here. Things can just be up-merged or otherwise moved to the "by decade" categories instead of all this pointless edit waring on your end over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

 Support abolishing by year categories at this granular level in favour of decade and century ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@G.dallorto and Adamant1: I'm not blocking either of you, but both of you should lay off the personal remarks as to the other's motivations, intelligence, competence, etc. and stick to the issues at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: if you did start deleting while this discussion is still going on, that is not good, and you should not do things like that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Admittedly this is spread across a lot of different conversations but I don't think I made any personal remarks about G.dallorto. If so, they certainly haven't been to the degree as his towards me. Also, a good portion of the deleted categories were for "events" that just contained subcategories for music and music obviously isn't an event. So deleting the categories was totally appropriate given the circumstances. That said, I won't delete any more categories involved in this going forward, even ones that shouldn't exist, but G.dallorto has to at least not repeatedly restore clearly wrong edits just to justify recreating the categories. I don't think he should mass recreate ones that have already been deleted either. Since again, they were deleted for reasons that had nothing to do with the CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Yes, he has been even less civil than you, but read the paragraph you wrote starting, "I shouldn't have to keep asking you…" and consider how you would react if someone wrote in that tone to you. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@G.dallorto: it doesn't matter what sequence of events brought us to the way the files are currently categorized. What matters is whether the categories are useful. If they are not, it is irrelevant that they were created with good intentions. - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Personalised license plates

A mix of UK ("personlised") and US spellings ("license"). Should be renamed to Category:Personalized license plates for the sake of consistency, although Category:Vanity plates can also work. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Although British English prefers "licence" I think "personalized" is more common or at least accepted in British English. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this is the spelling I commonly use. But considering the main category is Category:License plates, it is better to follow a consistent spelling, and in this case it is Category:Personalized license plates. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:1 Canidae

Should be Category:1 canid, in singular. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you just go ahead and rename? --A.Savin 09:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Locomotoras Albacete

The main subject "Locomotoras Albacete" is false, fake information deleted in eswiki Ezarateesteban 22:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ezarate: A few months ago I investigated the Commons images. They're fake, fabricated images. I propose its deletion. CFA1877 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The three photos proposed for deletion look very convincing but might be a good fake. Please check also the following two photos of the same uploader, which might be part of the same scam:

• 
  Otto's Diaries
• 
  Antiguo registro de partidos

Please check also the following three photos of a locomotive, which seem to be not affected and should be kept, please:

• 
  Locomotora - Albacete
• 
  The same loco with a confusing lemma: "Transiberian?"
• 
  Máquina del ferrocarril a vapor

--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from Great Britain by year

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books from Great Britain by year.

After 1800 these should all be in the United Kingdom Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children by person

Redundant to family categories and/or WIkidata's parent-child properties. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Grandchildren of Ronald Reagan

• Category:Grandchildren of Ali Khamenei

Redundant to Category:Reagan family and/or Wikidata's parent-child properties. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel like these categories are redundant, they're clearly well-defined subcategories. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep all of these. Yes, there is duplication between information stored here on Commons and implied through Wikidata. We like it that way. It works. It works with the available tools we have that work on Commons and without requiring unstable, largely unavailable tools to query through Wikidata instead.

Also Sbb1413, will you please stop trying to find ways to 'improve' the remaining parts of Wikimedia that you're not yet indeffed from, and just causing unnecessary chaos instead. We are not here to create some model of Russellian logical perfection and consistency, we're here to store images so that real people can find them with their clumsy, broken real-world approaches. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Parents' siblings and siblings-in-law

Redundant to family categories and/or WIkidata's realtive properties. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You're not making yourself clear here. What are you suggesting needs to be done? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Weak keep. This actually makes some sense as a non-gender-specific category encompassing the English kinship terms "aunt" and "uncle". On the other hand, there's very little media on Commons which actually deals with these topics. Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by spouse's occupation

Redundant to family categories and/or WIkidata's realtive properties. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You're not making yourself clear here. What are you suggesting needs to be done? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wildlife crime

Orphan category with no discernible purpose; was originally filled with a bunch of photos of Faroese whaling which doesn’t make sense because whaling in the Faroe Islands is not a crime. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

 Keep — This category still serves as the main category for criminal activities like Category:Animal smuggling, Category:Poaching (criminal activity) and others, and we do have real content on wildlife crime, like criminals, court judgements, and/or relevant statutes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Germanic nations

The scope and/or usefulness of this category are unclear. I assume that it is supposed to mean nations/countries with a Germanic language as their official language, but this still does not explain why this category is needed. In the worst case, it may just continue racist ideology. Bücherfresser (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete — I initially thought that categories like this would be useful to categorize countries/nations based on language or ethnicity. But it seems like such categories are redundant to other categories or Wikidata relations. I believe that Commons categories that merely duplicate the scope of other categories or Wikidata relations are not useful as long as there are no real content related to such categories. We already have content for Category:Germanic languages and Category:Germanic peoples, and Category:Germanic nations merely duplicates the scope of the previous two. Similarly, Category:Celtic nations duplicates the scope of Category:Celtic languages and Category:Celts, so Category:Celtic nations should be deleted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Prince (Ffestiniog Railway) on the Talyllyn Railway

Superfluous to Category:Prince (Ffestiniog Railway) on the Talyllyn Railway (2015). Prince has only visited the Talyllyn Railway once, in 2015, and there are no plans for any future visits. --Voice of Clam 11:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Funnelbeaker culture phenotype

Same as "Globular amphora phenotype": why do we need a category for a phenotype (of people?) of a culture defined by artefacts (which do not show how the people looked who made them)? I suggest deleting this category. Bücherfresser (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Just as speculative - and as empty - as Category:Globular Amphora phenotype. Same reasoning applies here. Omphalographer (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tube aerators

Reversion needed after undiscussed move from tundishes. The new name is an OR invention with no discernible use, either through Wikipedia or elsewhere. They are _not_ the same ar de:Rohrbelüfter, which are much closer to the specific subcategory of Category:atmospheric vacuum breakers. You can't simply invent new category names in a language you don't speak by just doing a literal translation of separate words from German. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Andy, it looks like you are addressing me. I only happened onto your comment here by chance, though, as you didn't ping me.

Thank you for pointing to en:Tundish#Plumbing which I was not aware of.

I have thus reinstated the category:tundishes but left the other categories in place as tundish apparently denotes the funnel underneath the actual vacuum breaker valves depicted in the three relevant images.

I hope this resolves your concerns or do you want to make the point that there is not such thing as a tube or pipe aerator/diffusor ?

KaiKemmann (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Locomotives preserved on the Settle-Carlisle Line

Delete. Category:Trains on the Settle-Carlisle Line is justified for operations over the line, but no locomotives are 'preserved on it'. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The whole 'preserved on' thing in category names was never well thought out so perhaps not surprising that it leads to baffling categories like this, I think the creator intended something like "Steam Locomotives used on the Settle-Carlisle Line in preservation". Either delete or rename Oxyman (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Petrol stations

There has been a lot of war between gas vs. petrol in different Wikimedia projects, and it could be better to use Category:Filling stations (or Category:Road vehicle fuel stations if you want to be specific) for road vehicles and Category:Fueling stations (or Category:Fuel stations, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Fueling stations) for the generic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support as I said at Commons talk:Categories/Archive 5#Use of English varieties in category names we can use a term acceptable (even if not common) in all varieties of English (and applies to also to diesel even though in common usage in British English they are normally called "petrol stations" rather than a British one. Per the previous discussion those specifically related to British English could continue to use this name but the rest should use "filling station" or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fueling stations

The subcats are using "fuel stations", "fueling stations", and "filling stations" inconsistently. So I propose to rename this and all of its subcats to Category:Fuel stations, dropping the "-ing" suffix. The term "filling stations" should be reserved for road vehicles, and "fuel stations" for the broader concept. See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Petrol stations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Celtic peoples

Upmerge to Category:Celts. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rudak Polonia

All these files were created by User:Sobczakkewin without any description or categorisation. Very unclear what, if anything they represent. Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms od Reimsdyck family

Typo, please rename: Coats of arms of Reimsdyck family GerritR (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graham

Nothing in this category fits the categories it is in. Rathfelder (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Its clearly ambiguous anyway so should probably become a DAB if kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bach musicians

Pretty much every classical musician is a "Bach musician". This category is really not helpful. Anvilaquarius (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Newspapers by year by country

some of them are one way round - 1810 newspapers of Norway , and some the other way - Newspapers of Poland, 1991 . Wouldnt consistency be better? Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree, and year should be first, standardize as "(year) newspapers of (place)". One advantage is that media can be categorized eg as "1910 newspapers" and if there is a subcategory for specific country it would be immediate apparent. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This will have to be well thought through. Russia, Spain and the United States, which have loads and loads of subcategories, follow the "Newspapers of COUNTRY, YEAR". Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1936 stamps

Shouldnt this be Category:1936 postage stamps? Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment It seems Category:Stamps and a large number of subcategories are about postage stamps. I have no strong opinion as to if they all should be reconfigured from "stamps" to "postage stamps", but note that if so it is a much wider issue than this one 1936 category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment There are certainly some things very like postage stamps that I would think at least potentially belong in the same category structure by year as postage stamps. Not sure about 1936 in particular, but consider revenue stamps (File:Stamp. USSR. Revenue stamps of the Soviet Union. img 01.jpg, File:Silas Wright Customs Revenue Stamp.jpg), semi-postal stamps (though I see we already have those indirectly under Category:Postage stamps), Category:Christmas seals, just for a few examples. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Needs wider discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videos of Wikipedia

shouldn't this be merged with Category:Wikipedia videos? Prototyperspective (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge similar type of media in both categories, don't see any reason to keep both. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stamps by year

Most of these stamps are actually Postage stamps by year, but there is no connection between the two categories Rathfelder (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

No need for a CfD to make Category:Postage stamps by year a subcat of Category:Stamps by year. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. But the same needs to be done to the subcategories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

99% of the images in these subcats are of postage stamps and a lot of them are totally unnecessary anyway. So my suggestion would be to merge them to "postage stamp by year" categories and/or get rid of them outright depending on the circumstances. A good portion of the categories for modern years only contain one or two images anyway since postage stamps for there's years are copyrighted. Getting rid of them would make this whole thing a lot simpler. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Racehorses of Japan born in the 1930s

Can this be fixed so it is categorised into Category:Japan in the 1930s, not Category:1930s? Rathfelder (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

個人的には良いのでないかと思います。Personally, I think it's a good thing.--Ocdp (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Why? Rathfelder (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

1930sから、日本の1930sへひと階層降ろすことに対する賛成という意味ですよ。変に英語使うと誤解されそうなので日本語で失礼します。--Ocdp (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Moxy

need to rename. there's also Category:Moxy hotels. RoyZuo (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Move to Category:Moxy Engineering per Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia has a DAB at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Programmes

What's the difference between Category:Programmes and Category:Programs outside computing, other than being spelling variants across the pond? Since the category Category:Programs is more established, I prefer merging the UK spelling to the US spelling. Note that I don't prefer any specific spelling variant here, but I prefer using one spelling variant across a given topic, although each subtopic or supertopic may use its own spelling variant. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose Will you please stop putting forward these terrible ideas for merges based on your poor language skills.

There is very obviously a clear distinction between these, based on common usage. This could be made clearer. We might even split the whole lot into clearly disambiguated names, and end up by merging the parents to deal with any language issue. But a merge now, with the content we currently have, is a dreadful idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Andy Dingley. Bidgee (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose merge; there are two distinct meanings involved here. That being said, distinguishing between those meanings solely by the spelling is hardly ideal, and a substantial number of files are being miscategorized as a result. Ideally, both Category:Programs and Category:Programmes should be disambiguation pages between "program(me)" (as in a government program), "program(me)" (as in a printed document), and "program(me)" (as in computer software - currently redirected from Category:Computer programs → Category:Software) - but I'm not sure how to word these. How can we make this clearer? Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorized media with description in Romansh language

Original request was for speedy deletion under COM:CSD#C2. Category author wrote "Does not qualify for speedy deletion as this category is no different than the others at Category:Uncategorized files by language of description".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep as no good reason to delete has been given. Sije (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment Is the discussion because it is not spoken by many people/is rarely non-empty? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Romansh is a relatively small language, with ca. 50k speakers (mostly in Switzerland). There are only ~4300 files on Commons with any description in Romansh, and the bulk of those files also have descriptions in German and/or English. I suppose there's no harm in keeping the category, but I also doubt there are many files uploaded which would be categorized here. Omphalographer (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

 Weak keep kinda superficial, but no harm in keeping, images in this category might even get more focus bcs of low occupancy. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Virsky

Request for deletion. Notion of "Virsky" is that it is just a short form of the existing category "Pavlo Virsky Folk Dance Ensemble". In fact, there is no need of such upper level category. It is like putting the "Kyiv Mohyla Academy" in the upper level category "Mohylanka". Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Station Bar, Dewsbury railway station

Isn't this the same as Category:Station Hotel, Dewsbury? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

no, this is a bar converted from a disused waiting room at Dewsbury railway station. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

So I looked at their geographical location in the camera location and the hotel and bar are separate locations near the station. However, the station bar only has one image, and the wikidata infobox belongs to the hotel, so the bar's category should probably be deleted, and the image moved to parent categor(y/ies). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I've added the categories to the hotel. I guess now the main thing is if we keep the bar as a separate category or not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Is File:The West Riding, Dewsbury Station - geograph.org.uk - 489640.jpg the bar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks inconclusive- plus none of the images of the inside of the bar on maps make me certain whether it is or it is not the same bar. The station bar location comes out in its parking lot though. As this above image is not in any of the subcategories, I would suggest putting the station bar image in "pubs in dewsbury to" and deleting the station bar category as I could not find any bar that uses that name- might just be a local name at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: Per Mtaylor848's comment about is being from the disused waiting room, according to WhatPub the West Riding was from the waiting rooms and there is another image File:The West Riding pub, Dewsbury railway station - geograph.org.uk - 7280045.jpg. If this is the same pub then it should probably be renamed to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury but if not we could delete the "Station Bar" category and create a new category for the West Riding pub. Even though the listing is for the whole station the pub seems to be a distinct enough named place to have its own category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, all this evidence does make sense. You should add that image to the category, and request a renaming.(I am not sure if the current name should redirect to the new name, as "station bar" is probably incorrect and it probably never has been called that-but I don't exactly know how redirects on commons work.) Great work on finding evidence that Mtaylor848 was correct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Compare the image on Trip Advisor with the image here, same black cupboards with hooks, same mats with holes and same black price notices with white writing. I think we should wait and see what Mtaylor848 says about keeping the redirect. Per Commons:Category inclusion criteria that I wrote I think in most cases if a name of a topic can be verified even if not notable on Wikipedia and even if not the most reliable sources then in most cases a category with just 2 pages is enough but I think if its a descriptive name then I think more like 5 or even 10 pages would be needed. If the category is only for the bar (in the sense of the place where you order the drink and food) then I don't think we would need a separate category from the rest of the pub unless there are many images of only the bar, most pubs and other buildings just have the images for the interior in the same category (and are placed in Category:Interiors of pubs) put sometimes (often for churches) a sub category for the interior is created if there are lots of images. Given it appears that the author intended this to be about the whole pub rather than just the bar its self since "bar" is often used to mean the whole pub I think we're fine with just renaming this (as opposed to creating a new category) but the question of if the redirect should be kept remains. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, renaming would be good, and would be better without leaving a redirect(especially bcs it seems unlikely anything looks to the current category). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mtaylor848: Do you have any objections to either the proposed rename to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury or not leaving a redirect behind at Category:Station Bar, Dewsbury railway station if renamed? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lebak

Restore back to Category:Lebak, Sultan Kudarat , reverting my category name move a few years ago. There appears to be another municipality of the same name (in Indonesia): w:en:Lebak Regency. Plain name is best converted into a disambiguation page. CfD made since I cannot move the category page back due to technical reason. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Support though the regency might usually be called with the longer name it has a much larger population and both ceb and en have the title as a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cathedral (Siena) - Main Altar - Ciborium

should be tabernacle, not ciborium=canopy MenkinAlRire (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:TV Allgäu Nachrichten

Umbenennung in Allgäu TV / rename to Allgäu TV DimiDimi (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Oberamt Heidelberg

1. usefulness of these ancient administrative division categories is very questionable. they dont contain any files but only categories of present-day places.

   these data belong to wikidata, not commons cat trees.

   many places have belonged to tens of or even hundreds of different upper administrative divisions. we dont do any kind of such cat trees here.

2. creating loops and overly broad cat trees and messing up User:OgreBot/gallery, as well as other tools dependent on a logical cat tree. RoyZuo (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Districts of historical states in Germany

this entire new cat tree is problematic.--RoyZuo (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. This category is not helpful at all for the named reasons. The category Category:Oberamt Heidelberg, if at all, should contain only images of documents or artifacts directly related to this historical administrative unit, but not present-day localities. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Lai Chau

Needs renaming. How is it different from Category:Symbols of Laichau Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wrigley Hall

Merge with Category:ASU School of Sustainability and rename to Category:Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building 10. This is going to be a bit confusing, because the School of Sustainability no longer occupies this building, but it is now Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building 10 (abbrev. ISTBX). There may need to be some Wikidata links broken. I'm a disclosed paid editor for ASU (see my userpage on enwiki). Melted Brie (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)