Category:Historic games

I propose deleting this (and its subcategory Category:Historic board games) or merging with Category:Traditional games. Reasons: 1) this tree, unlike "traditional" has no Wikipedia equivalent 2) it has no parent category except games (could add history, I guess) 3) crucially, who determines what game is "historic"? It's fine to keep Category:Games by century, but "historic" is too ambiguous to be useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment "Historic" too often seems to be used to mean "old" or "not recent". That said, "Traditional" may not be appropriate for all of these. Some clearer organizations by time &/or place might be good. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support 'traditional' in place of 'historic' as better illustrating the desired scope. It is easier to confuse 'historic' and 'historical' and it is not clear whether we mean games from history, or games about history. In any case, I'm not crazy about the amorphous, subjective definition of any of these kinds of categories, but 'traditional' is an improvement on 'historic', so I support the merge/rename. Josh (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Outside in Dubrovnik

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder Considering what I subsequently concluded, this is a very short and vague explanation. Already with the second problem with the empty category, I realized that you are freeing those categories. Now I see that there are a total of six such categories of the city of Dubrovnik. Are you emptying them for a specific reason? Vhorvat (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vhorvat, can you give an idea as to what was removed from this category? You should feel free to restore it pending conclusion of this discussion. Josh (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner I think I know where it was removed, but I have to check, I will post the solution here. Vhorvat (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner I analyzed what user Rathfelder was doing from 10:31, 1 June 2024 to 10:44, 1 June 2024 and found how he removed the category in question at this category Category:Exterior lighting in Dubrovnik. Vhorvat (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vhorvat Thank you for doing that research. So the category is not empty, which obviates the rationale for deleting it on that basis. Josh (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder, this category is/was not really empty. Is there any other reason for deletion, or can we keep the category and close the discussion? Josh (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The only real content is Illuminated buildings in Dubrovnik‎ - several layers below. What does this superior category contribute? Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I created these categories according to the existing common pattern for Germany, United Kingdom, France, etc. I always make sure to look at an already existing international example for the structure of categories (an already existing model or we can say a skeleton), and then I use it that way. I must emphasize that these category structures are very widespread and complicated. Also, in my opinion, I believe that individual category structures were formed by active users who are quite expert in the relevant field. Vhorvat (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Landscape architecture in Dubrovnik

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder Considering what I subsequently concluded, this is a very short and vague explanation. Already with the second problem with the empty category, I realized that you are freeing those categories. Now I see that there are a total of six such categories of the city of Dubrovnik. Are you emptying them for a specific reason? Vhorvat (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vhorvat, can you give an idea as to what was removed from this category? You should feel free to restore it pending conclusion of this discussion. Josh (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner I analyzed what user Rathfelder was doing from 10:31, 1 June 2024 to 10:44, 1 June 2024 and found how he removed the category in question at this category Category:Gardens and parks in Dubrovnik. Vhorvat (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder This category is/was not empty. Did you have other concerns, or can we resolve to keep the category and close this discussion? Josh (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The only content is another category, which also does not have any content except other categories. What does this category achieve? Parks and cemeteries are not really Landscape architecture. Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I created these categories according to the existing common pattern for Germany, United Kingdom, France, etc. I always make sure to look at an already existing international example for the structure of categories (an already existing model or we can say a skeleton), and then I use it that way. I must emphasize that these category structures are very widespread and complicated. Also, in my opinion, I believe that individual category structures were formed by active users who are quite expert in the relevant field. Vhorvat (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Green spaces in Dubrovnik

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder Considering what I subsequently concluded, this is a very short and vague explanation. Already with the second problem with the empty category, I realized that you are freeing those categories. Now I see that there are a total of six such categories of the city of Dubrovnik. Are you emptying them for a specific reason? Vhorvat (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This goes the wrong way: Instead of placing more files into a category that held only 1 or 2 images, Rathfelder cleared everything into an overpopulated parent category and seems to propose a deletion here. I am no expert in Croatian landscape categories, but it seems that Category:Green spaces in Croatia (for example) are a valid category branch. This can be checked for all proposals above. Note that I am mostly against overly granular categories, so I can understand Rathfelder's intention. But one should first sort as much stuff as possible from the parent category to the child nodes, before one decides that there is not enough material for an (otherwise well-defined) category. --Enyavar (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Enyavar please note that I created these categories according to the existing common pattern for Germany, United Kingdom, France, etc. I always make sure to look at an already existing international example for the structure of categories (an already existing model or we can say a skeleton), and then I use it that way. I must emphasize that these category structures are very widespread, especially because they follow the path from the most basic categories, making it much easier to find the ones in question where they naturally belong. Next, it is also much simpler later to create a new subcategory that fits into the structure. I think that the user Rathfelder was not aware of a specific structure in a particular case, because otherwise for Croatia would have to be reworked multiplied by a minimum of 21 counties. Vhorvat (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I checked to see that this category pattern already exists, and I said it was "well-defined", so no real issues. My concern was that there were only 1 or 2 images for the category in Dubrovnik, so it looked a bit premature.

For example: I've never been to Munich, but I firmly believe that a lot of oak trees are standing there. Yet, right now there is only Category:Quercus in Bavaria and its top-level districts, but not "...in Munich". If I now come across an image of an oak tree in Munich, I would preferably categorize it as "...in Bavaria" and only create the "...in Munich" cat once I found multiple other images to place in the same category, and I can justify the cat. Categories with only a single item are often controversial - but if you easily fill them with more files, people stop complaining about "atomized cats" --Enyavar (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Immediately, when I saw it, I understood from your description that you made an effort and understood the basic problem and a good definition. Question: is it a big problem if a category doesn't have files yet, but serves to "pass" the category structure from lower subcategories to higher ones? In this case, my starting point was the parks. I noticed the existing structure, which at first branches out nicely and then interlaces according to other important categories, such as architecture, buildings, landscaping, gardens, and more. In a couple of months, I did some categories for cemeteries, and they fit very nicely into that structure. Although I have created categories for cemeteries before, checking how other people do it, I saw how they improved it according to this structure.

It should be noted that user Rathfelder worked somewhat fast (view user contributions from 10:31, 1 June 2024 to 10:44, 1 June 2024) releasing 6 categories and I very quickly found 3 files, animals for Category:Mammals of Dubrovnik. It should also be taken into account that the user @Sbb1413 intervened for 2 other categories for the same reason, Category:Objects in Dubrovnik at night and Category:Illuminated structures in Dubrovnik. Vhorvat (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Populated places by type

While there is a pseudo-consensus on certain types of populated places (cities, towns, villages), it is becoming clear that we should establish a more rigid consensus for several types of populated places. My proposal for populated places is the following:

• Populated places – places where people live, permanently or temporarily.
  • Settlements – places where people live permanently, typically an administrative unit.
    • Urban settlements – high-density settlements.
      • Cities – main type of urban settlements, usually of high importance or population.
        • Megacities – urban agglomerations with population over 10 million.
        • Million cities – urban settlements with population over 1 million.
      • Towns type of urban settlements, usually of lower population than cities.
    • Villages – low-density settlements.
      • Hamlets – villages with low population.
  • Temporary populated places – places where people live temporarily.
  • Urban areas – areas with high density, usually a cluster of urban settlements.
    • Megalopolises – cluster of interconnected urban settlements separated by rural areas.
    • Urban agglomerations – cluster of contiguous urban settlements.
      • Conurbations – cluster of urban settlements without a definitive core city.
      • Megacities – urban agglomerations with population over 10 million.
      • Metropolitan areas – urban areas (or any clusters of settlements) with population over a million.
    • Urban settlements – see above.

While many countries have a clear distinction between cities and towns, some countries don't have such distinctions in English. For those cases, we may use "cities" for any urban settlements, and categories named "towns" or "urban settlements" would redirect to cities. The city-related or "urban" topics may be categorized under "cities", since it is the main type of urban settlements in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I had originally intended to categorize towns under cities to avoid the Category:Urban settlements category and because of the fact that we treat Category:Cities as the main category for urban settlements of any size. However, there are countries like the United Kingdom where the logic is opposite. In the United Kingdom, the generic term of urban settlements is "towns", and "cities" are towns with the royal right to use the title "city" in their names (like the City of Manchester). So I have decided to keep cities and towns separate with a common Category:Urban settlements category, which was originally used as a designation of certain Soviet-era settlements. I have created a separate category for the designation at Category:Urban-type settlements. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Metropolitan areas presumably belongs in there somewhere, as do Category:Unincorporated communities and Category:Municipalities.

Expanding on your remark about the UK: in several countries (and U.S. states, each of which has its own laws about this), not just the UK, "city", "town", etc. have legal meanings that have nothing to do with population. Thus, Republic, Washington, population 992, is a "city"; Bridlington in Yorkshire, England, population 35,264, is a "town"; Freeport, New York, population 44,472, is a "village", and forms part of the Town of Hempstead, New York, population 793,409. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant to sacrifice legally defined terms for our own terminology based on connotations. If we want a category that is about population as such, then give it a name that says as much, not one with a precise legal meaning.

Also: are these population-based categories based only on present-day population? Consider Detroit, which had nearly 2 million people in the 1950s, but less than 700,000 today. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I think "by type" and "by size" are different. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the categories I have listed are based on population, except Category:Million cities and Category:Megacities. I have not given any precise definations for Category:Cities and Category:Towns due to having legal connotations in many countries. Category:Urban settlements don't have such legal connotations and it can be used. Yes, the population-based categories are based on present-day population of cities, especially the urban population. Although Detroit's population is less than 700,000 today, its urban population is more than 3.7 million. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the larger population relate more to Category:Metropolitan areas than to the City of Detroit? - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we tend to use urban population while categorizing megacities and million cities instead of the population within city limits, which can be often contradictory. Instead, we should consider only the population within the city limits, unless we are dealing with Chinese cities. For Chinese cities, we should consider the urban population since their city limits often cover vast rural areas. In that respect, we won't categorize Detroit as a million city but as a "former million city". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

An alternative method is to define Category:Megacities as clusters of urban settlements instead of individual cities, which is much better. For that case, the category will usually categorize the respective urban areas instead of their core cities. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I have redefined Category:Megacities as urban agglomerations with population over 10 million, which is the definition used in Wikipedia. Category:Million cities is still defined as urban settlements above a million, because we already have Category:Metropolitan areas for urban areas (or any clusters of settlements) with population over a million. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support proposed schema. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I have tagged Cities, Towns, and Villages for more inputs. Also, Categories by city may continue to be used for populated places of any type, unless we have specific categories for those types. Not only that, Cities by population can be used to list large towns that are not classified as cities. I'm creating unambiguous city-by-population categories to list cities by population, since it is a very common way to list cities. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I have reincluded Megacities under Cities by population, since megacities are also considered as cities in global statistics. While the term "city" has legal connotations in respective countries, such connotations should be applicable for the subcats of Cities by country only. Otherwise, we can call any urban settlement a "city" as long as the context is clear. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• If you just define these terms in population size, then I would personally consider that the same term may have different meanings in different cultures, especially in non-English speaking countries and regions. To take an example, "村" was being translated as "village", but "里" was also being translated as "village". For Taiwan, they are all used as administrative subdivisions by the government. "Villages – low-density settlements" this definition is obviously not suitable for Taiwan.--125.230.64.49 17:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• We should probably have Category:Unincorporated communities in there somewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Female officers of the Policie České republiky

Same as mother Category but in some strange script or language 186.172.16.70 15:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Is "Policie České republiky" a particular police organization in the Czech Republic, or does it refer to all police in the country? If the former, native language names are allowed for particular things. If the latter, merge. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  It appears to be the actual proper name of a police force. Parent category is Category:Policie České republiky, so current name of this category is correct per the Universality Principle. Like a lot of government organizations, the name is boringly descriptive: it just translates to Police of the Czech Republic. There is a case to be made for the parent category to use the English, as that is commonly used for this organization (see enwiki for more info), in order to comply with category naming policy. However, that needs to happen at the parent category level and promulgate down, not just for this one sub-category. Josh (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Vietnamese diaspora in Alaska

I recall a COM:VP discussion a while back where they proclaimed that we shouldn't be creating single-entry categories, yet they proliferate nonetheless. Are COM:VP discussions random blather, or do they actually mean anything? Both parents of this category are lightly populated, so there was no apparent reason to break this off into a separate category other than to satisfy that editor's whims. RadioKAOS (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

COM:VP discussion are a valid forum, but they are not well-documented, so it is difficult to assume hard and fast consensus from them in many cases, and so I wouldn't use the word 'proclaimed' for anything there. I also recall some discussions about that, but there was disagreement over whether firm rules should be adopted or not and what those rules were, so I certainly wouldn't support deletion of a given category merely on the basis of those vaguely-remembered discussions. That said, if you can link a particular discussion, we should definitely keep those comments in mind while considering this category.

 Keep for now, nothing wrong with this particular category so far as jumps out at me. Josh (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"Nothing wrong"? It hinders navigation. Do you honestly believe the average person has time to wade through an endless labyrinth of barely-populated categories?. To reiterate, editors shouldn't be curating the site's content solely to satisfy themselves.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Question What navigation were you doing that this category hindered? Josh (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:People in literature

I don't really see what the point in this category is or how it's different from say Category:People associated with books. There's also two problems with it outside of that 1. Writers, publishers, literary families, and literary editors aren't "in literature" 2. This is a child of Category:People by occupation and Category:People in arts occupations but "in literature" isn't an occupation. So I'm wondering if someone can provide a better definition for what exactly the point in this category is and what it's suppose to be for. Otherwise I'll probably just up-merge everything. Adamant1 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Literary activity is part of book activity, but there is a difference between a writer with an editor and a bookseller. Combining them will make inaccuracy. a printing house worker and an author, still from different fields. I have made some changes to these categories... Perhaps this will make the difference in these categories more clearly visible... Miikul (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment To be fair, the name made me think it might be for people represented/depicted in literature, akin to People in art, but it is apparently for some kinds of folks associated with books. I'm not sure that the distinction between Category:People in literature and Category:People associated with books is meaningful. I get that a writer and a bookseller are clearly different, but they already have their own distinct categories. I think we'd be fine simply merging the two, with each specific profession or activity having its own category. The intermediate grouping of some of those occupations and not others doesn't have much value. Josh (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pictorial books

Anyone know what the difference between this and Category:Illustrated books is? Because I'm just going to up-merge it if not. Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can it be that Pictorial books consist of a lot of images with some text and that Illustrated books consists of a lot of text with some illustrations? Then the question should be: What is the difference with Category:Picture books? JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women looking left

Please look at Category:Women looking left. If the category means women looking to her left and not our left, why are most of the pictures shows women looking her right? I think this is confusing. Her right is our left, so pictures should be placed in the "Category:Women looking right" category. In the same way, for Category:Women looking right, women looking to her right, then every picture in the category should only show the same direction.

To put it simply, "left" and " right" are ambiguous or unclear. Also, the same problem also exists in Category:Women pointing left and Category:Women pointing right.--125.230.81.224 12:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, File:Geneva MotorShow 2013 - Skoda hostess 2.jpg shows a woman looking her right, but it be placed in Category:Women looking left. So should we rename the category?--125.230.81.224 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment all the "left" and "right" categories appear to as seen by the viewer (not the viewpoint of the person or thing in the photo or illustration). Where it is ambiguous, a hat note should be sufficient to address that. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Did you mean to say that the "Women looking left" category refer to women looking viewer's left? If yes, the naming should be more precise should be more precise to avoid confusing users or misapplication in other situations. Because my understanding of the category is that women looking her left and not viewer's left. I suggest renaming to something like Category:Women looking their left or Category:Women looking viewer's left.--125.230.81.224 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not a defining characteristic of a woman. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe not of a woman in general, but it is a characteristic of the particular image of her, and that's what we are categorizing. Josh (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Josh, however the cat name should be clear such as "Women looking to their left" –  Move Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

   Comment All of the "left" and "right" categories on Commons are as seen by the viewer. So "Women looking to viewer's left" would maintain that; if this category is renamed, that's what it should be (or a similar variation). "Women looking to their left" would reverse it and be contrary to the existing parent categories. Perspectives from the person (or animal or object?) would be a separate category tree. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Laurel Lodged: It's not a defining characteristic of a woman, but someone might be looking for an image where a person is looking in a certain direction. They might want to put it along the right edge of a document and have it look like the woman is looking toward the text. Same in reverse for women looking in any direction. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment See previous CfDs which covered some of this ground

1. Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:People looking downward
2. Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/01/Category:People looking left

Josh (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment What should the category be renamed? "Women looking to viewer's left"? Any better suggestions? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think that works well. But these categories can be moved to shorter titles with "their" just as easily:

  • Women looking left → Women looking to their right

  Sinigh (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that this is the correct category name. Because a woman can also be "facing left (with her body)" (from the viewer's perspective) and "looking left" (from the viewer's perspective) without "looking to her right", e.g. by actually looking straight (from her perspective). For example: File:110911-N-OY799-351 - U.S. sailors in a rifle detail observe 9-11 Remembrance ceremony aboard USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74).jpg — this file is in Category:Women facing left and looking left, but none of these women is "looking to her right". A woman who would be "facing left and looking to her right" would be a "woman who is facing left and turning her face away from the camera", like this: File:Through The Window (55150636).jpeg (facing left, looking away from viewer, looking to her right). "Looking left (from viewer's perspective)" ≠ "looking to her right". It would be inappropriate to rename Category:Women facing left and looking left to "Women facing left and looking to their right" because the name would not reflect the current contents of that category. It would also intermix viewer's perspective [facing "left"] with subject's perspective [looking "right"] instead of being all "as seen from viewer's perspective". Nakonana (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ali Mujtaba

Whislst starting a deletion request for Ali_Mujtaba_gilgit_00789_03.jpg I noticed that the reasoning for this applies to all files in this category, which should therefore ALL deleted. Uploader inserted CC-0 alas the metadata of all files contains: “ali2128@gmail.com This photo is copyrighted to Ali Mujtaba (ali2128@gmail.com) and hence an intellectual property of the said author. Any attempt to use, copy, modify, for personal and/or commercial means is strictly prohobited. No permission shall be given to anyone to utilize this photo. Failing to comply with the terms and condistions setforth shall invite legal consequences to be dealt with according to the law.” Zenwort (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the category is better described as "Photographs of Gilgit Valley by Ali Mujtaba". I propose to delete the whole category, and move content to "Gilgit Valley". If that cat is deemed overpopulated, it should be broken down by sub-locations, by decade or by topics, not by photographer.

Second, the licensing problem, which is tied to each picture and not the category in question here. Uploader and Copyright holder genuinely appear to be the same. I just filed a batch deletion request with the hope that either Ali himself can change the metadata, or that an admin can do so on Ali's behalf once he consents to such a change. --Enyavar (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems the DR result is to keep the files. Category:Gilgit Valley exists, so it seems appropriate to have Category:Photographs of Gilgit Valley by Ali Mujtaba under it. I support the rename. Josh (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Stadtkirche (Wittenberg) by year

why split this up when there're only 132 images? RZuo (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Only 132? 186.174.199.201 19:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

All files in these 'by year' categories should also exist under the main topic category or its topical sub-categories in addition to their inclusion in the chronological index. Josh (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 upmerge too narrow for a by year category. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Areas

This category is currently dumped with subcategories that may equally belong to Category:Regions. So what is the distinction between a region and an area? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Things like protect areas aren't usually at the regional level. Although I'd recommend just turning the category into a DAB page. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The category seems to be just another name for subdivisions, not a distinct kind of subdivision. I'd recommend upmerge to Category:Subdivisions. Josh (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Id be fine with that to. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 Any objection to an upmerge? If not, I think we can close this one. Josh (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No objections. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No objections. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Chinese stroke order

Category:Chinese kanji stroke order should be Chinese stroke order. It's an embarassing conflation Remsense (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This has been moved to Category:CJK stroke order (for the ideographic scripts used in the 4 East Asian language families or derived scripts, including Hanzi/Kanji/Hanja/Chu nôm sinograms, Nüshu, Bopomofo, Katakana, Hiragana, Hangul... and all their historic, traditional or simplified variants, radicals, strokes, Kanbun marks, and other related symbols). see also Commons:CJK stroke order project. Lot of work has been done (and is still ongoing) to sort all this coherently and with easier searches, navigation and more precise identification of characters, plus many properties from UniHan, identificaiton of variants, usages, and various updated templates that facilitate the work, and related works in Wikidata. projects pages have been updated and cleaned up (there will be smaller changes as the completion evolves, but now almost everything can be found and checked; various errors are being verified from relevant and authoritative referenced sources, including for fixing some broken SVG, bad links, or errors in properties). Overall the structure is in place and now maintainable (msot remaining works are in completing the various categories of ideographs, and check their members; no more overcategorization as well). verdy_p (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Female vocalists from Russia by decade and other similiar categories

strange kind of categorization . I propose to disorganize this category and its subcategories. And it's better to focus on the division by century. Example Miikul (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add these categories Miikul (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh, there are a lot more of them than I thought. Check the search for "Female vocalists by decade" Miikul (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

or see the list here Miikul (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Disney controversies

Category contains subcats of films. Media in those subcats does not relate to whatever controversy the film was involved in, as such this is not useful as a sorting/diffusing method. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding the following to the discussion as well:

• Category:Film controversies by country
• Category:Film controversies in Australia
• Category:Film controversies in the United States
• Category:Warner Bros. controversies

ReneeWrites (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, there's a whole mess of these categories starting out from Category:Controversies by type. Even limiting ourselves to the media-related subcats for the moment, there's at least:

• Category:Animation controversies
• Category:Animation controversies in television
• Category:Casting controversies in film
• Category:Film controversies
• Category:Mass media and entertainment controversies
• Category:Music controversies
• Category:Music video controversies
• Category:Obscenity controversies
• Category:Obscenity controversies in film
• Category:Obscenity controversies in music
• Category:Race-related controversies in television
• Category:Television controversies
• Category:Television controversies in the United States

All of which are categorizing topics, not media. Omphalographer (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• While we deal with more media than Wikipedia and thus this category may be less suitable here few of the articles in the Wikipedia category appear to be for controversies and some like Frozen don't even mention controversies so I wander if the Wikipedia category should be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Allforrous, Neverdoing, has any of you been to Australia lately? 186.174.199.201 19:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tammela

to DAB, like in enwiki en:Tammela. Hence, current category renamed to Category:Tammela (Kanta-Häme) or Category:Tammela, Kanta-Häme Estopedist1 (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Support even though the Finnish Wikipedia doesn't disambiguate the English Wikipedia does which is more neutral in terms of Finland v Estonia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tammela, Finland (Wikidata:Q1005049) is an independent municipality while Tammela, Tampere, Finland (Wikidata:Q18658632) is a city district in the City (municipality) of Tampere and Tammela, Hiiumaa Parish, Estonia (Wikidata:Q1659892) a village in the Municipality of Hiiumaa Parish, Estonia. In addition, "Tavastia Proper is used in Commons instead of "Kanta-Häme". ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 17:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • And to be exact, Tammela, Tampere, Finland (Wikidata:Q18658632) is not even a city district but an area consisting of two city districts: Tammela A (Wikidata:Q42901268) and Tammela B (Wikidata:Q42901269). ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Apalsola: what this opposing means? For the disambiguation like in enwiki or for the renaming to Category:Tammela (Tavastia Proper)? There should be convincing argument(s) if we deviate from enwiki solutions Estopedist1 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Estopedist1: I oppose the move from the current name altogether. I.e. the category name should remain Category:Tammela. As I stated in my first comment, Tammela is an independent municipality, while Tammela, Tampere, Finland and Tammela, Hiiumaa Parish, Estonia are only subdivisions within a municipality. I.e. Tammela, Finland is higher-level administrative region and thus it should have preference.

    Where is it stated that Commons should follow English Wikipedia naming? I did not find any mention in COM:LP nor COM:CAT. Commons is an independent, multilingual project. The English Wikipedia is not superior to Commons or other Wikipedias.

    With the mention to Tavastia Proper/Kanta-Häme I only meant that if we decided to move the category, then "Tavastia Proper" should be used because it is used in other categories in Commons. Whether it should be replaced with Kanta-Häme is a topic of separate discussion that should apply to all related categories at once. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 23:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pages with camera coordinates from SDC

Do we still need this category? I'm asking as it was mentioned in phab:T362494 as a sample of SDC burning capacity for categories on Commons. It currently has 7931959 files. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The same concerns apply to all large categories on Commons; other large SDC-related categories include:

• Category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (18M files)
• Category:Pages with object coordinates from SDC (4.6M files)

As well as, more peripherally:

• Category:Flickr images missing SDC creator (2.5M files)
• Category:Flickr images missing SDC inception (919k files)
• Category:Flickr images missing SDC source of file (685k files)
• Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland missing SDC MIME type (2.0M files)
• Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth missing SDC depicts (807k files)
• Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth missing SDC location of creation (896k files)
• Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments missing SDC depicts (1.8M files)
• Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments missing SDC location of creation (2.1M files)

Omphalographer (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the question is necessarily the same for all categories. "Missing" categories are dynamic ones, please discuss them elsewhere.

The only similar one I see is Category:Pages with object coordinates from SDC, but it's smaller. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Enhancing999, good point. I disabled adding of :

• Category:Pages with camera coordinates from SDC
• Category:Pages with object coordinates from SDC
• Category:Pages with object coordinates from Wikidata

It might take half a year or more for the categories to de-populate. --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Current counts are:

• 7,931,952 files, which is 7.48% of all 106,075,662 files on Wikimedia Commons.
• 4,692,892 files, which is 4.42% of all 106,075,663 files on Wikimedia Commons.
• 27,363 subcategories and 26 files.

Enhancing999 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I emptied out and deleted Category:Pages with object coordinates from SDC. Multichill (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:June 2024 floods in Ulm and Neu-Ulm

Löschen. Für zwei Städte wurde zwei neue Kategorien eröffnet. Der User der Kategorie erstellt und Bilder hochgeladen hat, antwortet nicht. Hier Diskussion: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Ulm_und_Neu_Ulm_in_selben_Kategorie Riquix (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep sinnvolle "parent category" für beide: Category:June 2024 floods in Ulm und Category:June 2024 floods in Neu-Ulm. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Das wuerde ich begruessen. Es handelt sich um ein Ereignis, das beide Staedte zur selben Zeit aus denselben Gruenden betraf – aehnliches gilt fuer zeit- und anlassgleich in beiden Staedten stattfindende Veranstaltungen. -stk (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hat doch übergeordnete Kategorie -> June 2024 floods in Germany und die jeweilige Unterkategorie für Ulm und Neu-Ulm in BW und BY. Wen man Kategorien jetzt doppelt machen würde man das ganze unübersichtlich machen und ist auch nicht üblich. Außerdem ist das Ereignis nicht nur auf Ulm oder Neu-Ulm bekannterweise beschränkt. Riquix (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Zudem scheint mir die Aufteilung etwas zufällig: das Denkmal landete in Ulm. Kenn mich aber nicht aus. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 No proposal wurde auch auf commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Ulm_und_Neu_Ulm_in_selben_Kategorie ausführlich behandelt. Dan müsste man ja bei jedem Thema das so machen. Bilder können in der jeweiligen Kategorie eingeteilt werden, wenn es beide Städte zeigt, kann man in beiden Kategorien Bild einteilen.--Riquix (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ist durchaus üblich, dass für ein Ereignis eine Kategorie erstellt wird. Hier kann diese als "parent category" für beide dienen. Es ist inkorrekt diese zu entfernen solange sie noch besteht. Besonders wichtig ist die gemeinsame Kategorie auch wenn die Bilder, wie hier, falsch zugeordnet werden. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Habe ich noch nicht gesehen, wo soll das stehen. Bitte Belege Aussage mit Wikimedia Hilfe Seite. Dann müsste man ja für alle Bilder, wo zwei Kategorien gibt, ein "parent category" erstellen nur auf uralten Bilder, die man nicht mehr zuordnen kann, mit entsprechen Titel. Man kann die Bilder natürlich in die richtige Kategorie einteilen, sollte Bilder nicht richtig eingeteilt sein. Riquix (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ein Ereignis = eine Kategorie. Wahrscheinlich gibt's dazu keine geschriebene Regel. Auch nicht, dass irgendwelche Grenzen genutzt werden sollten um die Bilder zum selben Ereignis zufällig in zwei verschiedene Kategorien zu trennen. Ist wohl besser die zwei Unterkategorien auch noch zu löschen, die Zuordnung scheint ja nicht möglich. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, das finde ich abstrakt, jemand ortskundiger oder sich viel Zeit beim Einordnen lässt, kann die Bilder sicher einordnen. Sollte es Unstimmigkeiten geben.--Riquix (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Das Ereignis (Hochwasser) ist nicht auf Ulm und Neu Ulm beschränkt, daher erscheint mir die Wahl willkürlich. Sie dürfte letztlich nur den Schwierigkeiten bei der Bestimmung des tatsächlichen Ortes im Grenzbereich zu verdanken sein und keinem planvollen Umgang mit Kategorien. --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wie gefordert Einteilung von anderen Themen dieser Örtlichkeit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ulm_Panorama_01.jpg schaut mal die Bilder an die kann man sicher zuordnen.--Riquix (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wie an anderer Stelle schon angemerkt: Ich bin im Urlaub und hatte vorher quasi als allerletzte Handlung noch schnell Bilder gemacht, bearbeitet und hochgeladen. Aus oertlicher Perspektive wird diese scharfe Unterteilung anhand eher willkuerlich gezogener politischer Grenzen nicht gemacht. Im Endeffekt bedeutet die Unterteilung, dass Fotos zu diesem Ereignis in beiden Kategorien gesucht werden muessen, weil zwar die meisten Bilder notwendigerweise beide Seiten des sowohl teilenden wie auch verbindenden Flusses zeigen, ein paar einzelne aber nicht. Das mag in einer stur nach politischen Verwaltungsgrenzen funktionierenden Logik Sinn ergeben, eher weniger aber fuer Nachnutzende der Aufnahmen im betroffenen Gebiet selber, die spaeter nach den Aufnahmen suchen. -stk (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wie im Forum: Es sind eindeutig zwei Städte und die anderen Bilderkategorien in dem Bereich werden genauso eingeteilt (in Ulm und Neu-Ulm).https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ulm_Panorama_01.jpg Auch wird das Begehren nach einer "Parent category" nicht Belegt mit eine Hilfeseite von Wikimedia. Das müsste man dann für sehr viele Bereich machen sobald es zwei Kategorien gibt. Böhmen und Mähren gehörte auch mal zu Deutschland auch wird es nicht die einzige Stadt sein die sich durch eine Fluss gegenüberliegt. Was ich auch schade finde die unterschwelligen Anfeindungen in den Diskussionen. Ich habe mal eine Weile geschaut und ich habe nur diese einzige Kategorie gesehen die so erstellt wurde. Ob jetzt Napoleon die Stadt getrennt hat oder nicht ist doch nicht relevant. Somit kann man sie auch in die richtige Überkategorie einteilen (Einteilung Bayern und BW). Ich denke mit der Einteilung wird man sich genauso gut mit dem anderen Bewohner der Stadt vertragen. Wenn du es so historisch und persönlich siehst wäre es dann nicht besser eine Volkabstimmung zu machen das sich Städte wieder verbinden? --Riquix (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Ich moechte hier noch einmal nachhaken, weil mir das gerade beim Kategorien aufraeumen immer wieder begegnet. Ich dachte zunaechst an die Kulturnacht Ulm/Neu-Ulm, die zeitgleich in beiden Staedten stattfindet, nun stolperte ich aber z.B. auch ueber das Donaufest Ulm/Neu-Ulm. Das scheint es durchaus regelmaessig zu geben und ich bin angesichts dieser Diskussion langsam etwas ratlos, was denn die allgemein gueltige Regel sein soll. -stk (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Diese Diskussion haengt nun seit ueber einem Vierteljahr mit offenem Ausgang herum. Ich halte die Unterteilung in rechtes Ufer/linkes Ufer nach wie vor fuer wenig sinnhaft, am Beispiel der Kulturnacht oder des Donaufests duerfte sehr offensichtlich sein, dass es Ereignisse gibt, fuer die eine solche Aufteilung mehr Verwirrung schafft als beseitigt. Ich haette auch gerne ein Upmerge wie von @Enhancing999 vorgeschlagen, mir ist aber der Prozess nicht klar, wie der Vorgang aus dem Limbo herauskommt (und ich will das als Ersteller der urspruenglichen Kategorie auch nicht einfach so selber machen) -stk (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wenn ein Bild in doppelter Kategorien platziert wird, kann dies zu Inkonsistenzen führen. Nutzer könnten verwirrt sein, wenn sie das gleiche Bild in doppelten Kategorien finden, was die Effektivität der Suche beeinträchtigen kann. Das Einteilen von Bildern in doppelten Kategorien erhöht den Verwaltungsaufwand und die Arbeitsbelastung für die Personen, die die Bilder kategorisieren. Riquix (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Deutsches Museum Nürnberg

Kategorie bitte löschen, wurde geändert in die offizielle Bezeichnung, die Fotos sind dort jetzt eingeordnet Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 18:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

seems a useful redirect Enhancing999 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Offizieller Name ist einfach nur Deutsches Museum Nürnberg, das Zukunftsmuseum dient lediglich als Alternativ- und/oder Zusatzbezeichnung (siehe Homepage, Jahresbericht, etc.). Wie das Museum auf irgendwelchen Tourismusseiten der Stadt und/oder Metropolregion genannt wird, ist irrelevant. Bitte wieder rückgängig machen.--HerrMay (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Der offizielle Name lautet entsprechend der Homepage des Deutschen Museums hier verlinkt Deutsches Museum Nürnberg - DasZukunftsmuseum, Category:Deutsches Museum Nürnberg deshalb bitte löschen! --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 10:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, deletion doesn't seem helpful. Also, the subcategories should be renamed. Currently it's Category:Zukunftsmuseum exterior and Category:Zukunftsmuseum interior. These should match whatever is used as the main category. "Exterior of" and "Interior of". As there isn't really much else, I'd probably delete the exterior subcategory entirely. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Headdresses

What purpose does this category serve as a subcategory to Category:Headgear?

Does Category:Headdresses, defined as "elaborate coverings for the head, worn for ceremonial or ornamental purposes", provide any meaningful structure under Category:Headgear, or is it too vague?

• It's two topics in one ("ceremonial or ornamental"),
• it's not clear what qualifies as a headdress specifically,
• several of its subcategories don't seem to fit the definition,
• there is considerable topical overlap with Category:Ceremonial headgear, Category:Religious headgear and others.

Interwikiwise, other projects aren't too concerned with the topic of headdresses specifically. Other than the Commons category, headdress (Q28972621) only has two site links; everything else is at the umbrella term, headgear (Q14952). Wikipedia makes no distinction between headgear and headdress. Likewise, it seems like many Commons users have thought that the category name "Headdresses" refers to headgear in general.

Category:Headgear needs some decluttering, but once that is done, would it make sense to sort all headdress categories and images by function, location etc. in the headgear category, and then delete Category:Headdresses? Or, if the headdresses category should be kept, how can we define its purpose more clearly and help users sort content correctly?

Sinigh (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't hold any strong opinion for keeping or losing this particular category; it's been here for about 17 years, though, so I'd only want to see it removed if that is part of a better-organized reworking of things people wear on their heads (and/or place on the heads of animals). - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think a merger into the main category would itself create a more intuitive category tree, but I'm no headdressologist. Sinigh (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Зона разгрузки (text)

Huh! Sorry? 191.125.181.151 02:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Unloading zone is a stable phrase in Russian used to designate the territory where goods are unloaded from vehicles. It is often used in documentation and on signs, so I find it useful to have this category. If the community decides that it is not needed, no problem. RG72 (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lion of Venice (ancient bronze statue)

already there is c:Lion of Venice, Piazzetta San Marco MenkinAlRire (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be for a class, whereas Category:Lion of Venice, Piazzetta San Marco is for the one in Venice. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, not see below (Lx121). It's about "L" then "L in Venice" and "L in Paris" Enhancing999 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly there is some overlap with Category:Statues of the Lion of Saint Mark

or Category:Fontaine des Invalides (a current subcategory of Category:Lion of Venice (ancient bronze statue)) should go elsewhere. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep - clearly the fontaine des invalides is a subset of the larger history of the same sculpture. open to a rename for the meta-category; otherwise, i'm not sure how to tie the 2 cats together? invalides doesn't fit as a sub-cat of the lion statue "in situ" in venice. Lx 121 (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It could go directly somewhere in   Category:Statues of the Lion of Saint Mark   or   Category:Statues of the Lion of Saint Mark by country.

We seem to have more than two of these statues: Enhancing999 (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• yeah, & that's the problem. this is a specific object. usually it's in st. mark's square venice, but under napoleon 1 it was taken/looted & put on this fountain in paris for a while (among all the other plunder he stole from venice & elsewhere... ). so the invalides fountain is a subcat of the statute BUT NOT a subcat of its location in venice (& the paris location isn't even in the same country, but it's still the same specific object... )... Lx 121 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oh, then the categories make sense. It's just the category names might not be optimal. I guess the categories could be kept in the way it is or the one for the time in Paris made a subcategory for Venice. Enhancing999 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • also; technically, it is debat.able whether the statue is "properly" of the lion of st. mark, as the core of the sculpture seems to be from pre-christian classical antiquity. it was later repurposed into a st. mark's lion statue (& patched up repeatedly), & currently it IS cross-categorised into another sculpture subject-type as well, not to mention location-of-origin (& neither of those should be a subcat of "lion of st. mark"). Lx 121 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

also worth pointing out - there is a wikidata item & infobox for the statue as a specific object. so all our material about this statue needs to be grouped in a "unified" category to fit with that info structure. Lx 121 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• i do think that Category:Lion of Venice, Piazzetta San Marco could be merged into Category: Column of the Lion in Piazzetta San Marco (Venice). there is some redundancy in having both cats, unless we wanted to distinguish btwn images showing the lion, & images showing the column? (or unless, the lion or the column, are separated (again) for some reason, etc.). Lx 121 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  About the last point, let's discuss it in Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/06/Category:Column_of_the_Lion_in_Piazzetta_San_Marco_(Venice). Enhancing999 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Column of the Lion in Piazzetta San Marco (Venice)

it is the third category for the same (c:Lion of Venice, Piazzetta San Marco is of 2018) MenkinAlRire (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The difference between:

• Category:Column of the Lion in Piazzetta San Marco (Venice)
• Category:Lion of Venice, Piazzetta San Marco

seems to be what is actually visible (lion or lion+column). Enhancing999 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Merge the second into the first. The difference is not worthy of separate treatment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • If so, how do we determine what is actually visible in the images? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• i'm ok with a merge; cat title should probably be for lion & column both. for images of the lion &/or column "in situ" @ this location we can decide whether it's worth subcategorising (one from the other) & how exactly to go about it. for the lion statue when it was elsewhere (or if it is moved again, say for repairs or etc.), we have the meta cat for the statue specifically (& we can subcat from there). if something happens with the column, where the 2 things are separated &/or relocated, we can worry about that if or when it happens. Lx 121 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we would merge, how do we determine what is actually visible in the images? (which categories to use instead?) Enhancing999 (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why would we want to make such a determination? The column is the column. Take from it what you like. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  You mean, add Category:Columns to images where it is visible? (as categories on Commons describe what is visible in the images) Enhancing999 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Let the categorisation happen at the level of the individual image, not by creating micro-categories of the parent category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:GLAM dashboard reports

do we still need this (especially the subcategories). They haven't been update in years and seem in the wrong namespace. Sample list of "categories":

Enhancing999 (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Delete all. Not an appropriate use of categories, and clearly unnecessary given that the underlying ARTtube project is defunct and only 21 files were ever uploaded by the project. Omphalographer (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

ARTtube is just one example from a larger set. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. These are still valid. The naming correctly places the report pages as sub-pages of the categories to which they refer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Are there any of these reports which contain useful, up-to-date information? Most of them look like they were maintained by User:Faebot, and haven't been updated since 2018. Omphalographer (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:SISAL

Should be moved to Category:Sisal (company). Wherever I look for reliable sources (, , ) I see "Sisal" not "SISAL". Of interest to: @Bedivere, InterComMan, and MrKeefeJohn. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Although Itwiki uses this title En doesn't and even the logo doesn't use all caps however it is an acronym so maybe should be kept as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  "It is an acronym" is not a suitable explanation. Many different things start as initialisms/acronyms but are then just ... not. For example, Xfce used to be an acronym, but now it is not. And acronyms do not have to be capitalised. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• I really don't mind which one ends up used here, but it seems the current logo uses "Sisal" instead of "SISAL". --Bedivere (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

move to "Sisal S.p.A." (could have been "sisal", but it's ambiguous). RZuo (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Dresden by name

Occasionally, I come across categories for streets and notice the ones for Dresden usually don't match the pattern "name (Dresden)", but "name, Dresden" and then move on. Afterall, it's a fairly large category with plenty of editors.

Looking into this more closely today, I noticed that a substantial part (454 of 2956: PetScan:28599808) don't match the second pattern. Accordingly, I would suggest to have bot change them to the first pattern (or the second pattern). Enhancing999 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What would be difference between "Category: Streets in X" and "Category:Streets in X by name"? 186.174.131.110 23:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure how this is relevant here. Maybe ask at COM:VP. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment For some cities with many streets, there are categories for streets by district/neighborhood/section. I notice that Dresden also has "Streets in Dresden by district" and "Former streets in Dresden". In such cases, "by name" categories that produce flat lists are useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Enhancing999, is there a rule how to name the street categories? In Dresden we often use "Street, Dresden". - I know, we are different then other cities with this name, but we are not alone. For example in Category:Hauptstraße you see 17 other cities with the pattern "name, city". - The same with naming pattern for buildings. Sometime with comma, sometime with "(city)", sometime without any thing. That's how it has grown historically. - We have in Dresden 3193 streets, some time one name for 4 different streets (See: Category:Hauptstraße, Dresden). Over 87% of all streets in Dresden has images, so we need for every street a category. Here a map of all streets (red=no image). And we have sort this categories by districts, so that the user can find his street in his neighborhood better. If you have more question, pleas ask. Best greetings from Dresden. --sk (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure, I doubt there is a rule. I noticed at least four patterns:

  • 1. streetname (placename)
  • 2. streetname, placename
  • 3. streetname
  • 4. streetname in placename

  Some pattern include translated name parts. I think it would be good to avoid #3 and #4. Between the other two, I usually pick what is in use in a city. Germany seems to be mostly standardized to #1. Placenames that usually include parentheses to begin with are probably "nicer" with #2. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  At the next meeting of de:Wikipedia:Dresden on 28. June I will ask my colleges how we want set the standard in Dresden. --sk (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Stefan Kühn: what did you decide? Or what did the coin-flip give? Enhancing999 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. If you prefer, I can remove the notice from Template:Dresden street in the meantime. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Enhancing999 and @Infrogmation, we had our local meeting last week. And we came to the conclusion that we want #2 with comma. It is easy to read and easy to write. So the majority has decided in favour of this variant (pattern: "name, Dresden"). Best regards from Dresden! --sk (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to suggest that we close this discussion and remove the notice from Template:Dresden street. Out of those 453 Dresden street categories (PetScan:28599808), which do not match the above mentioned second pattern, most are unique street names (nation- / worldwide), which do not require Dresden for clarification purposes at all, neither first nor second pattern. As of now there are only 110 categories, which match pattern #1 and might be useful to be changed into pattern #2 for general systematic reasons. And many of those 110 categories have just recently been moved by a non-Dresden-based colleague to pattern #1 without prior discussion, example see here. Unfortunately this work was begun, but not continued – and led to the situation which we are talkig about now. Personally I would be fine with both patterns #1 and #2, but also with the situation as it is now. The situation now with those 110 categories (out of nearly 3000; less than 4 %) is not perfect, but still everything is clear and not ambigous. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, in Commons:List of administrators by recent activity I am listed with only a few recent actions. These 3000 category deletions could bring some better ratings. ;) -- regards, 32X (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As there has been no opposition within the last six weeks I have finally removed the Cfd-notice from Template:Dresden street, so the notice will not be displayed any more at more than 2900 categories, which are not to be discussed any more according to the result of this discussion. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:TTC PCC streetcar 4180

Also:

• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4226‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4305‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4424‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4478‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4491‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4693‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4737‎
• Category:PCC TTC streetcar 4744‎
• Category:TTC PCC streetcar 4180‎
• Category:TTC PCC streetcar 4460‎

All empty and unneeded. Useddenim (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Useddenim, what you see here is the detritus left over by a ... an overly bold contributor, who thinks they are such a genius that the normal rules and conventions do not apply to them.

In particular, the long-standing best practice, for anyone who comes across a category they think has a less-than-ideal name is to either place a {{Move}} tag on it, or to formally initiate a discussion about it. When well-behaved contributors do this, and other people agree with them, a robot ends up moving the images from the old category to the new category. That is useful. Let robots do the mindless part. But the robot also does something essential. It redirects the old category to point to the new category.

The reason this step is essential, for old categories that once held some elements, is that we have no way of knowing when a third party has preserved the URL to a commons category. When the usual procedures are followed that external link to the commons category does not go 404. But, when our genius has done his or her worst, any incoming links from off-wiki will break.

I explained all this to our genius. I can't remember when. It was some time within the last year or so. Clearly they decided to continue with their same disruptive practice.

I will (1) look through my contribution history for those discussion; (2) if I find those discussions, I will look through the contribution history of the genius; (3) if I find the revisions where they emptied these categories in non-standard ways, I will move one element back into the old categories, so they don't get deleted due to being empty, and then this should become a discussion as to which category name should be a {{Category redirect}} and which should be the main category. Geo Swan (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Useddenim, I've got good news and bad news.

The good news is that identifying who has been following the highly disruptive practice of emptying perfectly reasonable categories of their contents without discussing it with anyone else turned out to be less trouble than I expected.

The bad news is that it was YOU. I beg you to show more respect for the work of other people. I urge you to do so in the strongest possible terms. I am sure I explained this all to you before.

In these edits you removed an image from Category:TTC PCC streetcar 4180 and put it into Category:TTC class A-12 (4675-4699) streetcars - a category you had just created. Geo Swan (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Useddenim's new preferred categories include:

Category:TTC class A-12 (4675-4699) streetcars

Category:TTC class A-3/4/5 (4200-4299) streetcars

Category:Undated works

(also Category:Unknown date) How do we determine what is the difference between "undated" and "unknown date" in the context of these categories. The note warns users not to confuse the two but offers no guidance on what the distinction is or what belongs in each. Josh (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Unknown date seems to be for files with {{Other date}}. I left a note for Verdy_p, its creator. Maybe the category name for these should be Category:Files with unknown date. Enhancing999 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"undated works" has some ambiguity to it: is it not dated by its creator or whoever has dating "authority"? Is it not dated precisely? Currently the category includes Category:Moses Younglove Tilden, undated which, according to the description at Category:Samuel J. Tilden Collection dates from 1785 - 1929. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want another categorization, this template must be unfrozen, I cannot edit it (it is blocked as is since 4 years in June 2020).

The category "Unknown date" exists since even longer time, the category "Undated works" was created and left mostly unused since 2020 (a few days before my last edit of {{Other date}}). So I made no error in 2020 (the "Unknown date" has been used many years before 2020, even if this tracking category had no description page at that time; my last edit in {{Other date}} in 2020 in was to add other tracking for bad years, bad eras, and several other parameters that were all checked; Note that {{Other date}} is generic and not necessarly used for tracking files with missing dates, but any usage of dates for localized formatting, including for example within Infoboxes or talk pages; note that the termplate takes a "nocat" parameter, allowing file description templates to use another categorization; may be we should have a parameter to specify which category to use in {{Other date}} when there's such "bad dates", so that we could use "Category:Undated works" instead for file descriptions ?). verdy_p (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian surnames that ends

And also:

• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ra
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ach
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ak
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-el
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ets
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-iak
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ii
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-iuha
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-iuk
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-iv
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ka
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ko
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-la
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-lo
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-na
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-no
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-pa
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-shyn
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ukh
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-uk
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-un
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ych
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-yi
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-kyi
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-lyi
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-nyi
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-vyi
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-nyk
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-yk
• Category:Ukrainian_surnames_that_ends_with_-ysh

Category:2024 Taiwanese legislative reform protests

Naming dispute; usage of the proposed name is not common enough. Also see the relevant discussion in English Wikipedia. The rename request here at commons should better proceed only after that is settled formally. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the issue is what to call it in English, I'd abide by the outcome of the decision on en-wiki, given that it seems likely that a larger number of well-informed people will participate there than on Commons. - 00:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:M1 Abrams tanks

Why does this category have "tanks" added to the name? There is no need to dab "M1 Abrams", and if there were, the correct form would be "(tank)". This should be renamed Category:M1 Abrams. Josh (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this disease is common in the tank tree and renaming of several categories is needed to properly comply with Commons category policies.

This is a start, but should be a clear theme to bring these into line with Commons category policies. Josh (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Updated the list with some other tanks. Most are fine, but these need to change. The possible dab category names are just for ease if someone sees value in adding them, not specifically part of the proposal. Josh (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories should take a plural form e.g. (tanks). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily when it's in the disambiguating text in parentheses. We have categories like Category:Saturn (apple) and Category:Titan (rocket) that use the singular term inside the parentheses. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Info There once was already a discussion about precisely this problem in the decade before last. It went back and forth quite heatedly, but it remained at that time (probably motivated by just one single user) to always add this “tanks” suffix. --Msb (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Celtic people

The purpose of this category (created earlier this year) is unclear to me. Some issues:

• Several files do NOT show the "entire Celtic range". For example, Gaule -59.png. Europam Sive Celticam Veterem also don't show "ranges".
• The typical way to subcategorize is "Maps of the Celts in Turkey", "... in Illyria", "Maps of the Gauls" - i.e. show the more general maps in the parent category, and the more specific ones in the child categories.
• who is the Celtic "people"? Proper english would be "the Celtic peoples", but that is synonymous with "the Celts"

-- Enyavar (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Upmerge to Maps of Celts.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Reines de fêtes et carnavals

1. Change the language to English. 2. Don't make categories for "apples and pears". 3. Clean up the category forest! 186.173.152.252 01:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1. Why? Seems to be France specific. 2. In this context the two seem related. Do you think this should be divided into two subcategories? Do you know enough about that to know which are which? 3. ...What? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Translated to English the name of this category is "Queens of parties and carnivals." Maybe there are queens specific to carnivals in France, but they exist in other places. As is evidenced by Category:Festival Queens. There's no reason to have two separate categories or one specifically for two seperate concepts just for a single country. This should be turned into Category:Festival Queens in France. Although with the caveat that "Queens" should probably be in lowercase. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think "festivals" is a better translation of "fêtes" than "parties". -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment media within the category is France related. If renamed, should specify "in France" or some similar designation. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Partially nude girls crouching

Look at all the stupid categories the template has added to this absurd category. I sincerely begin to doubt the intentions of people playing around nude girl, boy, adolescent categories... Stop it! 186.173.152.252 02:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing content from a category and making ad hominem attacks aren't a good way to start a CfD. Perhaps you can provide an actual proposal here with objective reasoning instead? Josh (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Ad hominem are these categories. Removing content?! Only one absurd file to invent more nudity categories?! Go away. 186.173.152.252 02:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete it. That is it. 186.173.152.252 02:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Speedy keep abusive nonsense request Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Would someone explain to me why this category is supposed to be useful? - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete this scheme is just cat nip for paedos.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

“If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile” —Kurt Cobain, on the album artwork forNevermind Dronebogus (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep This category fits into well-established categorization of nudity, people, and activities. Commons is an educational project and we shouldn't be concerned with what 'paedos' or any other such group thinks about the matter. If the file is out of scope, file a DR on it. If it is a valid image, it should be properly categorized within the established schemes. Josh (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I think the value of this category if any is to keep images of partially nude girls out of cat "Clothed girls crouching" and "Girls crouching". This is not a keep vote but this needs to be considered. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Military of Latin America

The category is currently a redirect to Category:Military in Latin America. It is added by Template:Military of country on Category:Military of Argentina and a dozen of other countries there. This seems to come from Template:Topic_by_country/data.

According to User:Billinghurst "please fix the usage, the redirect is useful and purposeful". I requested speedy deletion of this redirect precisely to do that. Explanation given was:

" Category moved to Category:Military in Latin America."

" Delete to stop Template:Topic of country using it and let the template automatically add the current subcategories to the new name."

" See also: Template_talk:Topic_by_country/data#Military_of,_military_in").

Maybe someone else can do it in another way. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment The issue is not the category (as a redirect), the issue is the underlying template and its use. So either remove the automatic categorisation to the category, or fix it in the template. Do not confuse the purpose and reasoning of category redirects, with their mispopulation by incorrect templating.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really confusing anything, but I don't think the redirect is that much needed. Maybe @Joshbaumgartner can help. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

'Of' is really a parent of 'in', so a redirect is not really the right way to go, they are both distinct. "Of" captures all military-region relations while "in" is specifically for military within the geographic boundaries of the region (whether it is from that region or not). Military of <country> categories do not go under "in", since the military of a country do not always remain within the boundaries of that country or region. Josh (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think @Auntof6 changed it in the other direction with opposite reasoning. I agree that "of" makes sense mostly for countries, "in" for everywhere else. Somehow the "topic by country" template can't handle that. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either is a parent of the other. I think military "of" a place is that place's own military, whether depicted in that place or elsewhere. I think military "in" a place is any military inside the place, whether it's that place's own military or someone else's. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Shall we go with "in" for all categories? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women called queens

All subcategories should change Queens to queens. Follow the queen mother. 186.173.21.236 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Jernej Furman

Furman is a client of Pixsy and known to use the service to demand large sums of money from people who had, in good faith, used photography he had offered under a Creative Commons licence. This includes my place of work, which received a demand for using stock photography that had been offered by Furman on their Flickr page under a CC 2.0 licence. They no longer have a Flickr account, which may be due to them breaching the Flickr guidelines on copyright. I'm concerned that Pixsy's demands for payment for use of Furman's Creative Commons images may not be in line with spirit of the Creative Commons licence enough that continuing to list them on Wikimedia Commons poses a risk to other users. As outlined here, previous occurrences have seen Commons remove the user's images; at very least a warning banner should be placed on this category to notify users that they're actively monitored by a litigious company. Hotpantsraindance (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) ; edited for wording 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Is your employers dispute related to Commons hosted media? How did they infringe the CC license? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's one of the Commons ones up now; it had been offered (when it was originally used) on their Flickr as a CC2.0 licence, but evidently is no longer available under that licence since the Flickr account has been de-activated. Which should be respected, but it doesn't undo previous licensing of the image under CC2.0. The notice from Pixsy only said 'without licence or permission', without noting that it had ever been available under CC, and linked to where it is now commercially available. If I'd received the notice, I might have believed from it that the claim was for infringing a commercial licence and been scared into paying the large fee to avoid problems. The guidelines seem, to me, to say that this isn't in the spirit of CC licences. If you check the thread linked above and here, there appear to be several similar claims from Pixsy on images that had been offered under a CC licence, including one person who got hit with a £556 invoice for claimed use of a CC Furman image that might have had improper attribution. Thought it was worth flagging - but it might be that the two libraries are separate enough that these don't need to be flagged as a potential problem? --Hotpantsraindance (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jabach Reredos

Reredos is scholar code and not understandable to everyone. Rename to Jabach Altarpiece MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

ok--Sailko (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Metterza by Dürer

Meterza is scholar code and not commonly understood. Rename to Virgin and Child with Saint Anne MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem Sailko (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, that should be Category:Virgin and Child with Saint Anne by Albrecht Dürer – Category:Virgin and Child with Saint Anne redirects to Category:Madonna and Child with Saint Anne, where there are many more artworks of this subject. Ham II (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Also propose similarly renaming the other "Metterza" categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Game tokens

Category:Game tokens should be merged into Category:Gaming pieces, some of the subcategories should be renamed accordingly (see below). The distinction between "tokens" and "pieces" is hard to make. The infobox at Category:Game tokens says "game piece". English Wikipedia at en:Game piece (board game) lists "piece" as the main word used (emphasis mine): piece // Or bit, checker, chip, counter, disc, draughtsman, game piece, man, meeple, mover, pawn, player piece, playing piece, singleton, stone, token, unit.. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am also OK with replacing the word "Gaming" with "Game" (as in Category:Game tables) or "Games" (as in Category:Games equipment). Here are the subcategories which should be renamed:

• Category:Board game tokens → Category:Board game pieces (alternative Category:Board gaming pieces doesn't sound very well to my ear)
  • Subcategories of Category:Board game tokens are fine
• Category:Game tokens by color → Category:Game pieces by color or Category:Gaming pieces by color
  • Category:Black game tokens → Category:Black game pieces or Category:Black gaming pieces
  • Category:Blue game tokens → Category:Blue game pieces or Category:Blue gaming pieces
  • Category:Green game tokens → Category:Green game pieces or Category:Green gaming pieces
  • Category:Red game tokens → Category:Red game pieces or Category:Red gaming pieces
  • Category:Yellow game tokens → Category:Yellow game pieces or Category:Yellow gaming pieces
• Category:Game tokens by material → Category:Game pieces by material or Category:Gaming pieces by material
  • Category:Plastic game tokens → Category:Plastic game pieces or Category:Plastic gaming pieces
  • Category:Wooden game tokens → Category:Wooden game pieces or Category:Wooden gaming pieces
• The Category:Casino tokens can remain as is, though I wouldn't mind renaming it to Category:Casino chips

—⁠andrybak (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

If the option with the word "game" is chosen, then Category:Gaming pieces should also be renamed to Category:Game pieces. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate ping (as someone who recently wrote w:game board as well as w:meeple, is a board game fan and is intersted in scholarly board game studies). Now, settng aside the use of words game vs gaming on which at the moment I have no opinion, I'd like to oppose this merge proposal at least when it concerns Category:Board game tokens. Token is a specific type of a gaming piece. The linkd Wikipedia glossary is far from perfect and so is ours (here at Commons) very messy category system, and said glossary lists as synonyms some terms that are more specific (ex. meeple). Anyway, meeples are not tokens, they are a type of pawns or gaming pieces. Looking at Category:Board game tokens, I see only one picture of what I'd recognize at tokens (visible at File:Netrunner - Gateway starter decks.jpg). So I can understand why some folks who may not be familiar with board games could be confused and think this category is bad (we also have an issue here at Commons that many board game components are copyrighted and we don't have many detailed pictures). Thing is, the category is needed but mostly contains wrong images. But see google search for "board game tokens. Now, I need to do more research and create more articles on notable elements of board game accessories (and mechanics), and define them properly (rather than trying to do OR), but if pressed, I would define board game token now as a "secondary" piece used to represent resources or secondary action pieces (i.e. tokens are clearly different from pawns or meeples). If you want more input, I recommend listing this discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games (I can do it if you don't mind?). PS. Here are some more images of what I'd consider board game tokens, not correctly categorized on Commons yet: File:Board game pieces.jpg (front), File:Components in Wingspan board game.jpg (on the left, possibly right as well), File:Components of board game Everdell.jpg, File:Cluttered forest in board game Everdell.jpg (on the right and left), File:Agricola board game.jpg (on the right, a bit on the left). Now, there is a partial overlap with the concept of resource in board game, and others (some tokens can take the form of coins or cards); and the overlap with w:playmoney is particularly confusing (paper money is a resource but usually not called a token, although coins are called tokens). Oh, and then there are tokens in card games, like MtG. Which, sigh, look just like other MtG cards for the unititiated. Anyway, I believe the concept of board game token is possibly encyclopedic (needs its own wiki article) and certainly deserves a Commons category and wikidata entry. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I very much welcome the merging of the two categories game tokens and game pieces. I would prefer the term that is used more frequently. Coming from the German language, I had great difficulty finding the English terms. I noticed the confusion in the whole category. There are also special terms such as Meeple (English, but used for Carcassonne in German too) or Pöppel (German). This game pieces are different from other game pieces. (In German: Spielfiguren sind spezieller als Spielsteine. I can't find a good translation.) It would also be good to merge Game and Gaming. All other terms should also be named more precisely. I searched for a long time for the English term for the German word Pöppel and then found Halma pawns. But Halma is a special game and I'm not happy with the term. In the meantime I have also found Game pawns, but this may lead to confusion with Pawns (chess). --XRay 💬 04:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus, what if we renamed everything to "X game components" instead? Even if we take the distinction "pieces vs tokens" you describe at face value, it might not be a very useful one for users. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Andrybak I am unsure what is the difference between Category:Games equipment which we already have as a parent category here, and Category:Games compontents, except that in widely understood board (tabletop) games, we don't talk about "equipment". Stuff like Category:Dice towers, which is an unofficial add-on/aid to make playing the game easier/nicer, would be usually called a game accessory (Category:Games accessories doe not exist; another type of board/tabletop game accessory would be Category:Playmats I just created recently, as well as Category:Game tables which we had for a while), whereas stuff that is actually used to play the game (included in the game box and required by the rules), would be a component. I have never heard of "board game equipment". (Side note: while standardizing "gaming"/"game", which I support, note we also use in categories the plural word "games"... we should probably consider changing it to "game" too). So anyway, I am totally fine with having a parent category "X game components" ("board game compontents"), but I am unsure whether we should rename Category:Games equipment? Now, with egards to Category:Gaming pieces, I am unsure if it should be kept or not, but Category:Board game pieces makes sense as one of several categories under Category:Board game components. For example, Category:Game boards (currently child to only Category:Board games) would be a board game component, but not a piece. However, I want to note that going by the definition of piece from the mentioned "en:Glossary of board games", the tokens as I understand them are not pieces. That glossary (unreferenced and not very reliable...) seems to understand the concept of the piece as a pawn/meeple or such - a controllable piece that is the focus of the game. But for me, tokens, in most games, mean resources. In all honesty, this is pretty complicated and we need to create a taxonomy / hierarchy of (board) game components (a task not faciliated by the fact that there are synonyms and contradictions in terminolgy, and clashes between common English and gaming jargon). https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Glossary for example does not have an entry for either "piece" or "token", or "compontent", despite using those terms in definitions... ("equipment" is almost never used). They have an entry on "bits" which seems to correspond to our concept of equipment/components ("The assorted components used to play a game."), but IMHO it is not the term that is very often used. At least their entry on "accessory" corresponds to what I described above ("Accessories are items that are used in games, but do not add rules or change game play. "). Sigh. Now, I rambled a lot and frankly I don't think I am helping that much; the problem is that we need to agree on terminology/hierarchy. For now, here's an actionable suggestion: under Category:Board games, I'd like to see a Category:Board game components as well as Board game accessories. The first groups everything that can be found in a game box, the latter is for extras (playmats, dicetowers, board game tables, etc.). Category:Board game bits and should redirect to Category:Board game components. Category:Board game equipment is ambigious and might include both components and accessories I guess, so I'd either not create it at all or use it as parent for components and accessories. Under components I'd have Category:Game boards, Category:Board game pieces (Category:Board game pawns would be here, with a child of Category:Meeples), Category:Board game tokens, Category:Dice, Category:Cards, and so on. I acknowledge we may need to do some more work on piece vs token, but I'd like to find those terms defined somewhere before we merge/rename them. PS. If we understand piece as synonym to component, we may also ignore creating this category. Category:Monopoly gaming pieces, for example, includes things I'd not call pieces (it has cards, tokens, dice...). I'd rename this category to Category:Components of Monopoly. Note that Category:Chess pieces refers explicitly to figurines. en:Chess pieces states that "A chess piece, or chessman, is a game piece that is..." without defining what a "game piece" is (no article on that yet...). Our Category:Chess pieces is a child to Category:Chess equpment and Category:Gaming pieces, sigh. I am not familiar enough with chess to be sure they prefer to use the term equipment over accessories (for stuff like Category:Chess clocks), but of course the term "chess piece" is common. But from the board game category perspective, chess pieces would belong to Category:Board game components, and probably to Category:Board game pieces... . And obviusly, they are not "tokens". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaning Support. As the above shows, if there is a clear distinction, it is not understood or acted on by many Commons uploaders and categorizers (what a surprise). I think the distinction could still be maintained in sub-cats. Why not rename to Category:Gaming pieces and tokens, if you can work out how to rename a Commons category, which I've never managed? Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: the distinction could still be maintained in sub-cats. @Johnbod, do you mean a category tree like this:

• Games equipment
  • Gaming pieces
    • Game tokens
      • Game tokens by color
      • Board game tokens

 ? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like that, but you haven't used Category:Gaming pieces and tokens. I suppose there are various possibilities, about which I won't have strong views myself - I'm content to leave that to experts. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Quattuordecalingual signs

As far as I can understand, English has both Latin and Greek prefixes for numbers upto 11. For larger numbers, Greek prefixes are more commonly used instead of Latin ones. While Dodecalingual signs uses Greek prefix, Tredecalingual signs Quattuordecalingual signs, Quindecalingual signs, and Sedecalingual signs are using Latin prefixes, despite being uncommon and having smells of WP:MADEUP. They should be renamed to Tridecalingual signs, Tetradecalingual signs, Pentadecalingual signs, and Hexadecalingual signs instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "signs with text in 14 languages" instead? Enhancing999 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just about to write that alternative proposal. It is better than using Latin/Greek prefixes. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The cardinal prefixes are consistent with the table at w:Numeral prefix. The Greek-based equivalent according to this table could be either tessaradecalingual, tessarakaidecalingual, decatettaralingual or decatessaralingual. I can't say that any of these is obviously more frequent in English. All category names in Multilingual signs use Latin-based prefixes. I suggest involving User:Iketsi in this discussion, who fixed some of these prefixes for consistency. Place Clichy 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any advantage in this naming? If we need a table to decode it, I don't think it's ideal. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The link to the table was meant to answer the suggestion that the prefixes were made up. I agree that past dodeca- they are not extremely common, but they are not made up. They belong to formal language. Place Clichy 10:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Beyond that, is there an advantage of this naming (past tri-) over "signs with text in 14 languages"? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any advantage to categorizing signs by the exact number of languages appearing on them? I'm particularly suspicious of the subcategories for specific intersections like Category:Quattuordecalingual Arabic-Czech-Danish-Dutch-English-French-German-Greek-Italian-Japanese-Russian-Spanish-Swedish-Turkish signs (!!); these feel like a similar problem to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Radio feature categories, where a set of intersecting properties exploded into hundreds of categories for every possible permutation. Omphalographer (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

They look fun .. I don't quite get them though. Looking at Category:French-language welcome signs the first level subcategories seem helpful. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It is obviously useful for bilingual, trilingual, quadrilingual signs which are very common, so where is the good limit to stop? It looks like a good idea to break down Category:Multilingual signs into smaller categories, and sorting them by language combination is useful imho. Place Clichy 10:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Chronological categories

Chronological categorization is widespread throughout many topics and 'by year', 'by date', 'by century', etc. indices exist for most major topics. Many users are very invested in creating, maintaining, populating, and using these categories. While this is all well and good, an unfortunate side effect is that many topics are so diffused by date specifically that they are very difficult for most users to easily access the contents of without browsing through seemingly endless specific date sub-categories. This has bred frustration with diffusion by date and calls for date categories to be done away with altogether. I am proposing a change that will allow the practice of chronological categorization to continue while avoiding the problem of diffusion without requiring arbitrary hard lines or convoluted new policies. I propose that we found a new category tree to be distinct from the Category:Topics tree under which all chronological categories will reside. This is basically identical to what we have long done with Category:Media types. This can be done without having to make wholesale changes to the current 'by date' hierarchy in most topics. This solves the diffusion problem by requiring that files added to chronological categories be retained as well in their original topic category (i.e. no diffusion). For supporters of chronological categorization, this will improve your work by gathering all chronological structure under one roof, allowing for easier standardization and automation support for structure while lessening the calls for restricting the level of precision in date sorting, as it will no longer adversely affect the browsing experience of users disinterested in the date of files. For supporters of replacing chronological categories with search tools and the like, this is also an improvement, as it mitigates one of the biggest problems, diffusion. Ultimately, if/when we develop sufficiently easy-to-use alternatives, having all chronological categories grouped will make it easier to transition to new methods. This proposal is relatively easy to implement and should lessen the tension on both sides of the issue. Josh (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support Everything that makes the category structure better and it looks like this proposal will do that. I like especially "by requiring that files added to chronological categories be retained as well in their original topic category" [or a subcategory of that original topic category; a file may be categorized in YYYY in Country X and in Buildings in a village of country X]. JopkeB (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Though, can exceptions be made for time-bound and trend-sensitive events like fashion shows? Fashion is different from year to year and often there is no other criterium to distinct then date and location (if for instance the designer is not known). And in those cases, date might just be the criterium you are looking for. JopkeB (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are many cases where date is a very important criterium for finding media, and that there are some topics where it is a primary one. This is why I've been trying to work on a way to continue with date-based categorization and in fact give it a space where it can be developed, and push back a bit on those who simply want to delete that kind of index.

When you say to make an exception, I guess I am wondering what exactly it would be getting exempted from. In my proposal, date-based categories would remain useable, accessible, and be sub-categories of their main topic. In the case of fashion, Category:Fashion would still be able to be indexed by year or what have you (though I note that it currently does not have date sub-cats, just by location of type). For something like Category:Clothing by season, this isn't really chronological so much as a style or type of clothing, so it would not be covered by this proposal. For true chronological subs, I think the requirement to retain the files in the topic category should be retained even if date is a primary diffusion condition, as I can't think of a topic where date truly is the only diffusion condition, however, I'm certainly open to an exemption and maybe it would be useful as a practical exercise to examine a particular case in detail. Josh (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The exception I mean, is that for these kind of categories it is not mandatory to have another parent topic category than date categories, like Fashion shows in Location A by date, Fashion shows in date and Events in Location A in date. An example is Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands by decade. JopkeB (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB I see, but Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands by decade already has the topical parent Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands, so it conforms to that requirement and doesn't need an exemption, unless I am missing something. Are there cases where there would not be (and should not be) a topical parent that you are aware of? Josh (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB Looking deeper, maybe you are referring to the specific files in sub-cats of Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands by decade? For example, File:Modeshow Huis ter Duin Noordwijk, Bestanddeelnr 901-8733.jpg does not currently have a topical category (if this proposal goes forward). Indeed, I do think this file should also be included under Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands somewhere that a user can find it without having to limit their view to a particular decade, so I would not normally want this file to be exempt from that rule, but maybe there is a really good reason it should be? I have no problem with certain topics having such an exemption...such topics can be separately discussed and if a strong enough rationale exists and it makes sense to do so, that is fine. Josh (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Yes, that is exactly what I mean. But if you do copy them to Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands, then this category gets more than 400 files, all mixed together. What would the advantage be? I do know another criterium to distinct then date and location. JopkeB (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB Ideally, if there are that many contents of Category:Fashion shows in the Netherlands, we should be able to find some meaningful diffusion method that isn't just by date or media type. How about what type of show it is, what type of clothing is being shown, the models doing the show, etc.? Those are just ideas, and fashion shows aren't my bailiwick, but I would hope there would be something. However, as far as I am concerned, if there really is no other meaningful diffusion than by date, and by date is a very useful and broadly understood method within the topic, I am fine with considering an exemption as you are asking for. However, I really would prefer that this proposal not necessarily try and lay out that kind of thing in specifics, but instead that specific cases be discussed and considered on their own merits. If a trend develops from that, we can certainly include that consensus in the scheme at that point. Does that work for you? Josh (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I can see your point. The only meaningful diffusion I can think of is by type of clothing. But we can better do that on the level of Clothing by type‎ by country: what added value is there for creating them for Fashion shows as well for a country? That would only mean extra subcategories and extra clicks. Perhaps for countries with very many files about clothing, but I think not for other countries. JopkeB (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That all sounds fine, but I don't think we need to decide that for this proposal. I would recommend that any topics like this be discussed separately and decided on their individual merits by those knowledgeable on a given topic...basically they can be their own CfD. Is that okay, or do you think we need to hash out this specific topic before we can adopt this proposal? Josh (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: That is OK, as long as these kinds of possible exceptions (and that they will be discussed seperately) are mentioned in the conclusion of this discussion, and/or in the guideline about it (if there will be one). JopkeB (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB I have no problem with that. I was thinking about it, and while I still do not want to include specific topic cases in the proposal, I could see including something along the lines of:

• In cases where a topic is commonly parsed by a an agreed standard period of time, indexes of that topic using that period of time can be additionally considered topical categories for the purpose of file diffusion, and thus files can be diffused into these categories from the parent topical category. (i.e. if it is considered standard practise to diffuse all files of 'FOO' by year, then a file may be moved (instead of just copied) from 'FOO' to 'FOO in 2024')
• What standard period of time is suitable for a particular topic should be determined by consensus of the community and affected categories should carry a hatnote (template to be developed for this) denoting their status. (i.e. some discussion should be had on the category talk page for smaller niche topics, or a CfD for larger or broader topics)
• This only applies to the period of time (i.e. years, decades, etc.) agreed upon by the community for the topic. Indexes by more precise periods should still be considered purely chronological categories and not be valid diffusion targets. (i.e. if 'FOO' are agreed to be diffused by year, a category such as 'FOO in April 2012' do not qualify and its files should also be retained in the closest topical category, in this case 'FOO in 2012'.)
• This should not be adopted for topics where parsing content by date is irrelevant to a significant portion of users or for topics with other accepted topical diffusion schemes.

The above is just a very rough first draft, and I am okay with it being considered a work in progress even as the rest of the proposal is adopted, with the understanding that it will be refined in light of real-world practice. Josh (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: In broad terms I agree with you. My remarks, interpretations and questions:

• My interpretation: This exception mainly applies to periodic events such as fashion shows, festivals, competitions, championships, national days and elections; individual files can of coarse also be placed in additional categories, such as for (groups of) people (artists, athletes, politicians/political parties) and/or other characteristics.
• There has to be a discussion about the standard period of time before a category can be given this exceptional status. But I may hope that for obvious topics, such as the Olympic Games, we do not first having to put on a charade.
• Do I understand you well: subcategories for more precise periods must also be placed in the parent category? To me that looks like overcategorization.
• Agree: not for other topics.

JopkeB (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB For sure, for periodical events, such as an annual show or sports season or what have you, I would agree. There is no reason we need to have the contents of Category:1981 Formula One races all be also contained directly under Category:Formula One races, so that kind of exemption I don't think anyone would have an issue with. As for the amount of discussion needed, that really depends on the case. I imagine that some topics will be obvious so no more than a simple note on the talk page saying what we are doing, and so long as no objections are raised, then happy days. For larger topics, a CfD may be needed to get real consensus on how to handle the topic. Essentially, consensus rules apply, I don't want to try and change any of that here.

• On the note of more precise time periods, the issue will come up when from a topical perspective, let's say year has been decided on as a good level so we employ the exemption for that, but then some month or day level categorization is done. If Category:Fashion shows in 1999 is deemed a topical category, that's fine, but if there is a Category:Fashion shows in March 1999 then that would still be a chrono cat and its contents should not be moved from Category:Fashion shows in 1999 because the year level is the farthest down that normal topical users should be expected to parse to be able to access the contents. It is currently an overcat violation to do this, which is why the proposal would change that, as overcat does not need to apply to non-topical categories.

I really don't think that we need to over-legislate this...in 99% of cases it will be pretty clear to apply this proposal, and we can wrestle with any corner cases as they come up. Josh (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait for your proposal to solve this ("overcat does not need to apply to non-topical categories") to give my comment. JopkeB (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

An additional problem to consider is that creating countless subcategories by day or year also makes it impossible to search the other topical categories with the "deepcat" option. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: Please explain: What is the "deepcat" option? How would it affect searching the other topical categories? JopkeB (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, I noticed the same point was raised (and explained) in Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999 Interesting point to consider. I think a specific example might be good to look at here and see if we can mitigate this. As it stands, I don't think this proposal would either eliminate, nor exacerbate this issue one way or the other. Josh (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Support For now as an interim step to implementing something better in the future. I'd ultimately like to see chronological categories just be deleted though. At least in cases where they are purely meaningless minutia. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment It would be good to attempt to quantify the starting point when such categories can be created. How many files should there be on the topic? How many other subcategories? How many files in a (by year) category? (Sample: at least 20 years with 200 files each, other years with fewer). Enhancing999 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  There were discussions about this issue, but we never reached a common conclusion. See Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date for a recent discussion. JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  • The scope here is somewhat different. To get somewhere, we will need to try. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

    I think that was the discussion that actually pushed me to make this proposal finally (though many discussions on these topics over time have influenced it). I'm not sure the RfC is structured to really reach a conclusion in this case, it seems to be more of a sounding board at this point. However, the salient point I get from it is that there are some strong use cases for chronological categorization (hence why it is so widespread), and at the same time some very valid concerns about deep chronological categorization detracting from the accessibility of files to most users who are not looking for specific time periods. I created this proposal to give a tool to help specifically alleviate that particular concern. It is not in any way an attempt to define what level of chronological categorization makes sense or what is the appropriate type of period to apply to a given topic. That includes any thresholds on what periods are allowed or what starting point should be used for a topic. Those are really a separate issue from this proposal. Josh (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History, just started today, for a closely related topic. Perhaps join forces? --JopkeB (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The advantage of this thread is that it has a somewhat defined scope. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that "history" is such a vague thing to begin with. If it were me I'd just get rid of all the categories on here for higher level philosophical or scientific concepts. I don't think chronological categories and "history" are necessarily orthogonal to each other anyway though. I think here it's more a matter of deciding what level of time is appropriate. Whereas with "history" it's more an issue with the definition of "history", or really the lack of one. I think a good standard here might be that the categories have to be proportional to the rate of change of the subject. For instance, if a product is the same year after year then "by year" categories are rather pointless. But if the images are for something that does change from one year to the next then "by year" categories are probably fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB There is certainly some connection between the two, but the key distinction is that History is a topic, while Chronological categories is not. The conflation of topical 'history' categories with index 'by date' categories is a key problem that this proposal is intended to help with. I think the discussion over at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History is its own thing and seems to be revolving around what qualifies as 'history' and the technical issues of file-dumping and what to do with the massive file load in that particular topical category. I am not saying there aren't common points between the two, but this proposal is specific to development of a non-topical category tree which would necessarily be independent of (though linked to) topics such as history. Josh (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Joshbaumgartner: for the explanation. Is it your intention to keep the date categories like Millennia‎, Centuries‎ and so on as subcategories of Category:History as well as Category:Chronological categories? JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB That's a good question. I should think that the actual categories, Category:Millennia, Category:Centuries, Category:Years, etc. are actual topic categories and unaffected by this proposal. Chronological categories (perhaps more accurate to say 'chronological index categories') would be Category:Categories by millenium, Category:Categories by century, Category:Categories by year, etc. In practice, an image of an airplane from 2024 would not be normally be moved from Category:Aircraft to Category:2024, as our current policies are against such a move. However, our current policies encourage moving it from Category:Aircraft to Category:Aircraft in 2024 to diffuse while avoiding overcat. This causes problems for those that might be looking for aircraft photos. Thus, this proposal would make Category:Aircraft by year a chronological (index) category, and thus policy would encourage adding the file to this index, but not removing it from Category:Aircraft. Josh (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

And then, I may hope, put this image of an airplane from 2024 also in several other subcategories (like by country, model, operator, manufacturer) because otherwise Category:Aircraft will be overpopulated. JopkeB (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB: Oh certainly! For brevity here I might just refer to 'aircraft', but for a topic as deep as that, of course they are going to be well diffused into many different subs including the ones you mentioned. Apologies if I wasn't clear, but retaining it in the topical category is really retaining it in the topical category's tree, down in whatever specific topical sub-category(ies) it goes in per the Modularity Principle. Josh (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Transmembrane receptors

why is this linked to Cell surface receptor (by Rezabot in 2015) and not Category:Cell surface receptors and also not in that category? Prototyperspective (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the bot will respond here. ;) You might want to go ahead and just fix it. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure the proposed change is accurate, given each of these cats have lots of subcats and the situation existed like this for quite some time now. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There are membranes within the cell, therfore not all membrane receptors are at the cell surface. Kersti (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Higher education institutions organizations

The "institutions" part is inappropriate, and the category is redundant to Higher education organizations. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess it depends what it's to be about. Weirdly it links to 2/3/4 different places at enwiki:

• (in the description) w:Category:University organizations (broken, now at w:Category:University and college organizations)
• Interwiki 1: w:Category:University and college organizations
• Interwiki 2: w:University society redirecting to w:Student society

Category:Higher education organizations was created last month. Maybe this should have been moved instead? Enhancing999 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:National anthem of Hungary

Duplicate of Category:Himnusz which also refers to the nationan anthem of Hungary. KonstantinaG07 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I agree it is a duplicate. Can we keep this page as a redirection? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Works by artist name

This category was renamed from "Works by artist by name" to "Works by artist name" in 2017. Makes sense, but is inconsistent alongside categories on the same level of specificty, such as "Works by artist by century" etc. I assume that the intention with the original name was not only to express that this category sorts works by the name of the artists, but more specifically that "this is one of the Works categories that are sorted by artist, and it is sorted by name," ergo Works by artist by name. Sinigh (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

... my question being: Was the move correct or should it be reverted? And if the name should be kept, should similar categories be renamed, such as Category:Works by author by name to "by author name"? Sinigh (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Pierpao who moved it. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

And what is the difference between this one and Category:Works by artist? Sinigh (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Droyc Studios

All of the files that might have belonged in this category carry only non-commercial licenses in the EXIF, suggesting that no file uploaded to this category is likely to be suitable for Commons due to incompatible licensing, so it is likely remain empty Rrburke (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Digitized flags

What's the scope of this uncategorized category? Most flag images uploaded in Commons are digitized versions of real flags. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Topics (flat list)

This is an interesting category idea. Is the idea to have every topical category listed here? I'm interested to hear where this is going. Josh (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is not only to have every topical category listed here but also to provide standard categories and navigational templates for every topical categories. The idea is implemented through {{Topic category}}, which relies on {{Topic by country/data}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh. What shall I say? We do have Special:Categories for that.

You might rather want a hidden category limited to the ones used by that template. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Special:Categories does not differentiate between topic and country categories. This is why we have Countries by name. The Topics (flat list) category is similar to Countries by name, but with topic categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously larger, but "topics" isn't really a finit group, whereas countries is.

I'd move this to Category:Topics available in Template:Topic by country/data or similar. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the VP discussions on the need of better documentation of template-based categories like the ones for these from topic-by-country, maybe members of this category could have a note mentioning "Topic by country/data". The note could add the category automatically. It could also display some information from "Topic by country/data" about expected subcategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I would definitely agree that this category should be a hidden cat. Josh (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Haarbilder

Does it mean Hair pictures? 186.173.53.58 15:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It means pictures made from/with human hair (please have a look here).

Derbrauni (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are these made only in German-speaking countries? 186.172.245.52 04:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not. According to the Wikipedia article, they were present throughout Central and Northern Europe. North American examples are likely to be the result of the influence of Central European immigrant families. So far there is one piece of evidence of a hair image from Latin America. Derbrauni (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Maps of the Algerian railway network during French rule by year

Ridiculously granular categorization: currently 10 categories for 19 files: This should all be moved into "Rail transport maps of French Algeria" (or maybe just ""Old rail transport maps of Algeria" --Enyavar (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Same for Category:Maps of the Algerian railway network by year. Why do we need these duplicate structures? It's not for preventing access, since the files could be better hidden if they weren't categorized at all. --Enyavar (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 Deleted Category:Maps of the Algerian railway network during French rule by year. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Tagged Category:Maps of the Algerian railway network by year. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Groups of solo person

What is the need for such an abstract so-called category? 186.172.245.52 04:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Groups of people. The sole file in the sole subcat of this category can be equally categorized under Groups of people in art. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:International mountains

What's the difference between International mountains and Mountains and mountain ranges at international borders? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

None? 186.172.245.52 12:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

a) International mountains: single mountain, b) Mountains and mountain ranges at international borders: mountain RANGE. --88.128.88.26 12:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

But the second category covers both mountains AND mountain ranges, which makes the first one redundant. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd rename the second category just for mountain ranges. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Preferably International mountain ranges for consistency with International mountains. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:International border signs

What's the difference between International border signs and Signs at international borders? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

None? 186.172.245.52 12:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What and where. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

International border signs: signs about international borders.

Signs at international borders: signs located at international borders, no matter what they're about. They could be signs directing people to bathrooms, or telling them the price of things at a shop, or whatever.

I'm not saying that's how the categories are currently used, but this is what the names say to me. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Although you're technically not incorrect, what would be the value of such a category? How do we even define what counts as "at international borders"? MB-one (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It finds the "narcotics checkpoint" one.

"international border" and "sign" should be defined as in the parent categories. For contributors, it could be useful for sorting through signs found in these categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Files from 39895673@N04 Flickr stream

Empty cat, no such Flickr uploads from this user. A1Cafel (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment similar problem as Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/06/Category:Files_from_Flickr_(uncategorized_2016). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Educational architecture

This and it's sub-categories seem redundant with Category:Education buildings and it's not really clear what makes something "educational architecture" anyway. Really, it's badly defined at best. If not totally meaningless at worst. So I'd like to suggest just moving everything here to Category:Education buildings as it's been around a lot longer and has a much clearer meaning. Adamant1 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Rename to Education structures, since there's nothing in the corresponding Wikipedia article that can be meaningfully covered in this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree, this category should be merged into (replaced by) the category Education buildings. Obviously there is a difference between specific buildings and the art, science and practice of designing and building them, but the latter cannot be expressed by photographs and drawings alone. So the category would have a place on Wikipedia, but not on Commons. —Minderbinder (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Stepanakert

Khankendi is a city in Azerbaijan and since 2023 it is under Azerbaijani control. Its previous name was Stepanakert but in 1991 it was renamed and today its official and since 2023 de facto name in place is Khankendi. Even in recent reliable sources this city is mentioned first of all as "Khankendi" but "Stepanakert" is mentioned only as a name "known to Armenians" or "known in Armenia". Even the recent report of The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights uses the name of Khankendi throughout the report, only once in the beginning mentioning that the city is "referred to as Stepanakert by Karabakh Armenians". For that reason all categories containing the name of this city in their names should be with "Khankendi". And categories with "Stepanakert" should be redirected to the categories with "Khankendi". Interfase (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose rename until other projects catchup per my comments in the ANU complaint. Categories mainly exist to help people find and sort files. There's zero evidence that either one would be made easier by renaming the category right now and plenty that it confuse people. We don't rename categories the second a place has changed it's name just because a European commissioner refers to it by the new name. Regardless, there's no reason we can't wait until other projects change the name before changing it on our end. Otherwise what's the rush besides POV editing or an unwillingness to deal with on Wikipedia's end first? There's no reason they wouldn't adopt the new name if it's as widely used and accepted as OP is claiming. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  The city was not renamed to Khankendi yesterday. It was renamed in 1991 and since that the new name is widely used enough in English-language sources beyond Azerbaijan. We do not rush to rename the category but we are already late in renaming. Interfase (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Your needlessly repeating yourself. Why not ask the various Wikipedia projects to change it on their end if the new name is so widely used? Or are you just going to keep bringing up the same talking points over and over that no one is disputing? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that our decision should depends on the decision of other projects. Some projects, for example Russian Wikipedia, have already renamed the article about the city to Khankendi (based on the discussion by the way). Interfase (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Then why cite how the Russian language Wikipedia has it? Look, I don't think our decision should depend on the decision of other projects either but this does serve as the main image repository for Wikipedia and the majority of Wikipedia projects haven't changed the name yet. So it's not nothing. So again for like the fifth time, why not ask the various Wikipedia projects to change it on their end if the name is that widely used and accepted? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead by example. Maybe if we will change the name here other projects will fix the problem on their own projects as well. Or shall we wait till all other projects change it? Of course not. You can ask various Wikipedia projects to change it. I am not interested on all of these projects. I think that finally all of them change it. But we cannot wait till the last one will do it. Commons can do it now without any command from elsewhere. Interfase (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment BTW, I brought it up on the English Wikipedia article. I think we should at least wait and see what they have to say about it until there's a definitive decision here. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to run around how other projects currently have it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose Place names should be changed without problem when the place doesn't change: St. Petersburg to Petrograd to Leningrad to St. Petersburg, or Swaziland to eSwatini. But when through military force, one population ends up removed and a new population installed along with a new name, they're not really the same place, and renaming the old categories instead of making new ones feels like erasing history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I made the argument in a similar CfD recently that we can't necessarily rename categories every time somewhere is taken by force from an outside party or there's something like a minor border excursion that leads to a name change because it's just not a sustainable way to do things. I think the same would apply here. Although it's been a while since the name was changed, but then it's also out in the middle of nowhere in a fairly unstable region where someone from the other side could easily take it back. I don't think changing the name of the category in situations like that is necessarily the best option. Especially in this case since there's clearly no will for it on the side of other projects. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Proposal: Keep the old ones and make new categories for Khankendi from 2023 onwards. Add good descriptions, showing their connection, and put See alsos in both categories. JopkeB (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The main thing is keeping the old category until we're sure it's not going to just be changed back at some point in the near future. Although we could probably still keep it beyond that as a historically useful category for the old administrative area anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"somewhere is taken by force from an outside party..." - Khankendi was not "taken by force from an outside party". Actually it was more that 30 years occupied by outside party (in fact army of so called "Artsakh" was consisted of the servicemen of Republic of Armenia). In 2023 Azerbaijan restored his control over his international recognized territory including Khankendi. I think that we need apply here the same approach like we are doing with St. Petersburg or Eswatini. No any outside party renamed the city of Khankendi. It is the city in Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized (even officially by Armenia) borders. And Azerbaijan not just renamed the city in 1991. It restored historical original name that was till 1923. So, there is no any "erasing history", there is "restoring history". Interfase (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

No offense, but the historical information is mostly dross in cases like this anyway. We aren't Wikipedia and this isn't a dispute about what facts should go in a Wikipedia article. The only thing that matters here is Commons:Categories#Structures "If you have more than two pictures: create a new Category, named after the structure. For example Category:Rheinbrücke Emmerich. Use the common name." The historical background information has absolutely nothing to do with that. This isn't a debate about who did what, when, or who was in the wrong. We're simply here to figure out and use the common name. That's it. Period. End of story. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That is what I am talking about. Today the common name of the city is Khankendi. And the main category should be with this name on title. We can rename the category or can keep separate category "Stepanakert" in category "History of Khankendi" (like Category:Königsberg), but the main category should be "Khankendi" to prevent misinformation. Interfase (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't support making "Stepanakert" as a sub-category of "History of Khankendi." Really, the usefulness of "History of Khankendi" seems rather spurious to begin with but that's a separate issue. I fail to see how this category is "misinformation" though. Even you wouldn't deny that there was a place called "Stepanakert" at one point even if it was renamed. Not to be rude, but comments like that are one of the reasons I'm hesitant to rename the category though. As it seems like you have ulterior motives here other then making it easier for people find and organize files related to the area. Just an FYI, but we aren't here to support, promote, or push a particular side of something or nationalist agenda on users. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not have any "ulterior motives". My position is transparent and clear. Readers should know that there is no any "Stepanakert" today in Azerbaijan, like no any Königsberg today in Russia. That is what I am calling misinformation: showing that there is city of Stepanakert in Azerbaijan, which is not true. It will be easy for people find and organize files related to the area when it was called Steanakert, if we have redirect files from Stepanakert to Khankendi or categories related to Stepanakert are in the category about the history of Khankendi. Not to be rude, but if we have list of the categories in the Category:Cities in Azerbaijan and one of this category has old name, this is misinformation, because category "Cities in Azerbaijan" is not about the history, it is about the real situation. Interfase (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't have "readers." Again, this isn't Wikipedia. Regardless, calling the current name "misinformation" insinuates that categories are meant to be "informational" to begin with. That's not their purpose though. Categories aren't for storing data or facts. At the end of the day the name of a category doesn't matter much outside of helping people find and organize images. That's all they exist for. If your so concerned about informing people or dealing with "misinformation" then edit Wikipedia. The category being "misinformation" isn't a valid reason to change it though regardless of if it actually is or not.

That's one of the reasons I told you this isn't a debate about historical facts or politics. Your clearly not getting the point though and I'm pretty tired of this back and forth. So here's what I'm going to do. I'll leave this alone for a week or two more and then I'll probably change it based on whatever the consensus is that point. All your doing is talking in circles though and there's nothing more to discuss about it at this point anyway. So I'd appreciate it if you stop beating the clearly dead horse by leaving it here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not agree with your position. But anyway I agree that we both clearly explained our points. Let's wait other opinions. Interfase (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name is "Stepanakert". This is confirmed by a Google Trends seach of the two terms over the past 5 years. See here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • As per my comment above, the common name for the old place may have been Stepanakert, but the new place is Khankendi. This is more like Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, and it's inaccurate not to represent that change for new files relatively promptly. We should have categories with the current name for the current place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    It's only current because the population was expelled / was forced to leave in fear of their lives. It is a gross distortion of facts to say that it is "..like Rhodesia to Zimbabwe"; the people of Zimbabwe decided to make that change themselves - it was not imposed by colonists or conquerors. It would be more accurate to say that the nearest equivalent is the Nazi renaming to the Polish city of Wroclaw to "Breslau." Should the actions of conquerors trump the wishes of the city population? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

    • You're talking about a city under Azerbaijani control since 1923, and internationally recognized as being part of Azerbaijan since the fall of the Soviet Union. (I note the w:Stepanakert#Demographics expulsion of four thousand Azerbaijanis from the city was almost complete by 2005.) The Nazis didn't rename the Polish city of Wrocław to Breslau; Breslau became part of Prussia in 1742, and had been using the name Breslau since around 1250. In some ways, it's more like when the Allies displaced all the Germans from Wrocław after WWII.

      Yeah, it's ugly. But it's way more complex than you suggest, and the reality is that it's going to continue to be Khankendi.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

      • We should follow Wiki's lead in this regard. Retain the common name used by the people (before they were expelled / ran in fear of their lives, that is). Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
        • So, should we use the common name used by the people before they were expelled from Breslau? Or the Azerbaijani who were expelled from Khankendi? You're simplifying it what seems to be a long history of multiple groups in the area with intolerance for each other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Update Pending the outcome of this discussion, I have restored all categories that used the name "Khankendi" to the status quo ante bellum - "Stepanakert". Prior to this discussion, @Golden and Interfase: had surreptitiously changed them, presumably in the hope that the facts on the ground would determine the shape of the peace. That's just not nice; not in Ukraine and not in Commons. Let this discussion decide whether "Stepanakert" is the common name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  ̊̊̊Golden has done that to countless Armenian village names across the region. It needs to all be reverted and then an actual discussion should take place. RaffiKojian (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose The natives call it Stepanakert, as do most references to the city, and the most recent democratically elected government. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi call it Khankendi. Most resent references use Khankendi as well. The only legal government call it Khankendi as well. Interfase (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Current population (more than 3 thousand people) and local students of Karabakh University (more that 1 thousand people) also call it Khankendi. So Khankendi is the common name for local people as well. Interfase (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  There were no "Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi" since the dissolution of the USSR. Today, the only "Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi" are those who were born in the city following the expulsion of the native Armenian population. All other Azeris in Stepanakert are those from other parts of Az.Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nine years before their expulsion in 1988, over 4,000 Azerbaijanis lived in what was then known as Stepanakert. Not sure what your definition of "native" is, but Azerbaijanis aren't aliens that suddenly appeared in the region. — Golden ^talk 11:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ask Interfase what he means by ""Native Azerbaijanis from Khankendi". "1988, over 4,000 Azerbaijanis lived in what was then known as Stepanakert.": so even in USSR times it was known as Stepanakert. Thanks for confirming that. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Native Azerbaijanis are Azerbaijanis who were born in this town and were faced with real ethnic cleansing in 1988. They are still alive and call their homeland Khankendi today. Hope it is clear now. Interfase (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment These two editors are actively removing or altering category names of Armenian origin. Even if the Armenian name of a city sounds similar to its Azerbaijani counterpart, they replace the English letters with Turkish Latin script so that the city is perceived as Azerbaijani (for example, Category:Tagavard became Category:Tağaverd). I fear that all of this is being done either out of deep hatred for Armenians and everything Armenian or as part of a sponsored mass action (or both). Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Azerbaijani government officially renamed this town in Azerbaijan to Khankendi, not "these two editors". Interfase (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment As far as I can see at Category:Cities in Azerbaijan we usually (except for Category:Baku) use the Azerbaijani city name version instead of the english version. Therefore in my opinion the question here in this Cfd should rather be whether to use Category:Stepanakert or Category:Xankəndi as parent category, just for systematic reasons. Khankendi should only be a redirect to the preferred version out of those two (i.e. to the result of this Cfd). Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  That suggestion rather misses the point; it is only in recent times that Stepanakert could be described as an Azerbaijanian city. The inhabitants thereof would never have self-described as "Azerbaijanian". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for not being clear enough! I'm only talking about the the language version az (Xankəndi) instead of en (Khankendi) to be used for naming the category tree if decision should be made not use Stepanakert any more. My comment for this second-level decision is based on what I can see at Category:Cities in Azerbaijan (except for Baku only az-spelling, no en) and is only due to systematic reasons. It's not a contribution or even a vote to the first-level question being discussed here. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Arabian Peninsula

The only difference between Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula is that the former includes Bahrain and Socotra but the latter doesn't. English Wikipedia covers both regions under the Arabian Peninsula article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm.

Hmmmm. Having pondered long about it: Vote no change.

"Arabia" describes a multi-faceted topic; the geographical area of the peninsula and the cultural region overlap in many aspects but not fully. Yes, en-WP covers both topics under the peninsula-lemma, but with a thousand-mile high view. This is an extremely large topic with thousands of specialized subtopics. Unlike en-WP, the es-WP and fr-WP cover both topics under the regional lemma ("Arabie", "Arabia"), so the other way around. de-WP has a disambiguation: do you mean the peninsula, or the much larger "Arab world"? Just four languages, three approaches.

Given how "Arabia", "Arabic", "Arabian", "Arabistan", "Arab" may have different connotations depending on the user's language, I do think that the current order of categories is more flexible: Have a somewhat ambiguous super-category "Arabia", and more specific sub-categories like "Arabian Peninsula": And yes, most files should indeed be placed further down the cat-tree, deep below under "Arabian Peninsula".

...

Some more details I considered: Regarding "History of Arabia" (or in other words: "Arabian history"). Those terms are not 1:1 identical with the "History of the Arabian Peninsula". Some countries (Palestine, Syria, Jordania, Lebanon, Iraq) are historically considered Arabian, especially before the modern borders were defined. Just recently, Arab nobles from Mekka could just be made kings of Syria and the Iraq, and while they weren't considered "locals", that idea was acceptable for many. Also check out en:Palestinians - that nationality only got defined in the 20th century. Before, they were "Arabs" similar to how people in Aden or Baghdad were ethnically "Arabs". Again, different clans and accents, but that's details.

The fixed borders on the Peninsula since the late 20th century are a historical anomaly, the region was historically split into influence areas not marked on the ground. Lines in the sand (like in history maps about Arabia) are a convenient approximation.

The two category trees under Category:Maps of the history of Arabia and Category:Old maps of Arabia in their current configuration are my creation, because the content had been awfully disorganized before. Some (Saudi?) contributers had created a host of categories under "Arabian Kingdom": According to that theory, the current "Kingdom of Arabia of the Saudis" (literal translation from Arabic) is just the current instance of the general "Kingdom of Arabia", by which they meant the realm of Arabia regardless of the fluctuating borders I mentioned above. That was anachronistic, and we moved Category:16th-century maps of Saudi Arabia to a more appropriate place. In my opinion, the name "... of Arabia" is also more succinct than "of the Arabian Peninsula".

That all said, I'm curious how others will see the matter. --Enyavar (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I see how confusing how confusing the term "Arabia" can be, especially for laypeople. But the confusion should not prevent us using the term "Arabia" for the peninsula if we can add manual descriptions properly. To me, there are several similar-sounding but distinct terms:

• "Arabia" or the "Arabian Peninsula" — the peninsular region of the Middle East (or West Asia).
• "Arabs" — the Afro-Asiatic ethnic group originated from the Arabian Peninsula.
• "Arabic" — the language of the Arabs, can refer to anything pertaining to the Arabs (Arabic culture, Arabic history, Arabic numerals).
• "Arabian" — anything pertaining to the Arabian Peninsula (Arabian culture, Arabian history, The Arabian Nights), a hyponym of "Arabic".
• "Arab world" — the area inhabited by the Arabs.

Some more details I considered: Regarding "History of Arabia" (or in other words: "Arabian history"). Those terms are not 1:1 identical with the "History of the Arabian Peninsula". Some countries (Palestine, Syria, Jordania, Lebanon, Iraq) are historically considered Arabian, especially before the modern borders were defined. Just recently, Arab nobles from Mekka could just be made kings of Syria and the Iraq, and while they weren't considered "locals", that idea was acceptable for many. Also check out en:Palestinians - that nationality only got defined in the 20th century. Before, they were "Arabs" similar to how people in Aden or Baghdad were ethnically "Arabs".

You may have confused between "Arabian", "Arabian" and "Arab", which I've clarified above. Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq are called "Arab countries" in the sense that they are inhabited by the Arabs, not because they were historically considered as parts of "Arabia". While the Palestinian nationality got defined in the 20th century and before that the people were considered "Arabs", they were called "Arabs" because they belonged to the ethnic group who spread beyond the Arabian Peninsula for over a millennium. Nonetheless, the term "Arabia" usually refers to the peninsular region and it does not include the Levant, despite the region being dominated by the Arabs. So, there's no need for separate categories for the actual peninsula and the region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I am well aware of the terms and definitions in English. Also, even in modern definitions, the southern parts of Jordan and Iraq are part of the peninsula. Arabia Petraea is located in the levantine countries, however, so grey areas exist where both terms are not fully synonymous. Anyway, while English is indeed the language used in our category tree, Commons is supposed to serve all language communities, and we should still try to keep things understandable for users less familiar with any of these defintions, or with our general way of categorizing things. Images with the category "Arabia" are often the lazy category-tags of files not always concerning the Arabian Peninsula. Having them collected here instead of directly moving them to the most important current subcategory, i.e. the Arabian Peninsula, is preferable in in my book. I see no necessity for a change, especially with Category:Bahrain being part of Category:Eastern Arabia. Also, Category:Socotra could be categorized here as well, like you state in your OP. --Enyavar (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plaques project

Either there is an official project, which should be described here, or it is a user initiative and should be done on user pages (not categories). Thus the structure contradicts COM:CAT. XRay 💬 13:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Plaques project: relevant categories

Either there is an official project, which should be described here, or it is a user initiative and should be done on user pages (not categories). Thus the structure contradicts COM:CAT. XRay 💬 13:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Undeveloped streets in Tallinn

We do not have Category:Undeveloped streets, so why do we have this sub of Category:Streets in Tallinn? All of the contents are developed to some degree, though there is room for further development. Still, 'undeveloped' seems wrong here. I'd recommend an upmerge unless we apply some standard stages of development to streets that includes 'undeveloped streets'. Josh (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Old road alignments

We do not have Category:Road alignments, so this sub-division of them seems odd. "Old" is also a poor way to diffuse a topic, generally. The contents appear to be exclusively old or possibly Category:Disused roads. Can this be upmerged or is there a real purpose here? Josh (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment — As per my observations, the purpose of this category might be to categorize the former sections of realigned roads, especially highways. Abandoned road sections of U.S. Route 66 can be decategorized from Old road alignments, since Route 66 is no longer an official U.S. Route. There's also the ill-defined Old roads category, which might be prone to be misused. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There's already Category:Disused roads. So why not Category:Disused road alignments or something similar that doesn't use "old" in the name? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Old roads

Ill-defined category, with new files being added here arbitrarily. We already have Disused roads for really old roads out of maintenance. We can also create categories of roads by century, decade, and year to replace this vague category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right. 191.126.44.131 02:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Media personalities

Anyone know what makes someone a "media personality" versus just a normal "media person"? Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's that the former is (also) shown in media while the latter includes people like screenwriters and so on (more behind the scenes). If that is not a false rough description, then still some subcats of the latter should probably be moved into the latter. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep there is a distinction, per Prototyperspective. All those who work in mass media are "media people". Most are not "media personalities", but most of the ones famous to outsiders are. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Falling climbers

At least a few of these images are clearly of people jumping off of something. Which brings up a question, how do we know these people are "free falling" and not just repelling or otherwise going down of their own accord through something other then falling? Adamant1 (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

They are all objectively falling and are climbers, with many on a rope (so it is not always free falling), but none are in the process of abseiling/rapelling which is a different form of motion/action.

If the category was very big, we could probably split into 'climbers falling on a rope' and 'climbers free falling', but that is probably not useful now. However, open to any other ideas regarding naming etc. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How do we know none of them are in the process of abseiling/rapelling when we can't see the tops or bottoms of the objects they are climbing? Really I'd say anyone who is connected to a rope while going down is naturally repelling. Otherwise they would just be in free fall down the side of the object, which none of these people seem to be in. So probably they are being fed rope to go down with. They aren't free climbing though. Which would be the only instance IMO where "free falling" would be an appropriate description. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you are familiar with climbing? Not a single one of those images are of a climber rappelling or abseiling. These climbers are either falling while lead climbing (and on a rope) or falling while bouldering (no rope needed). Is there a particular image where you think a climber is rappelling/abseiling? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually am thanks. Maybe it's because I live in the United States and that's where I've done my climbing, but I don't think someone traversing down a rock on a lead that's being fed to them would say they are "free falling" or even falling to begin with. Your only falling once the rope snaps and your at a free decent into the ground. Ask someone leisurely being fed a rope to go down a mountain if they are either "free falling" or "falling" and they would say no though. I've certainly never "fell" when rappelling. Although I think you could maybe argue that's what's technically happens since it's so dependent on body weight, like with someone ziplining, but we go the most common usage for names of categories. And no one is like "I fell" or "I free fell" once they get to the bottom of a zipline. So it's a totally meaningless term, at least in actual practice if still technically correct. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

None of the images in this category are being "lowered down"? They are either in the process of falling (some attached to a rope, and some free-falling without a rope), or the rope has just began to become taught. They are all "falling climbers"? Is there a particular image you have an issue with? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:European Union

What subcategories do we want for this category? Should it only have all the subcategories that are typical for the EU, like parliament, government, legislation, institutions, and so on? Or also for categories like Structures, Geography, Nature with subcategories for each member state? Or is it enough to have those categories just for Europe (the continent)? Who is going to search for Structures in Ireland via Structures in the European Union? JopkeB (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment — Some region-ish EU categories, like Geography of the European Union, History of the European Union and Economy of the European Union, are valid Wikipedia topics, although I don't know whether these will hold the cards of the region-ness of the European Union. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Any topic which contains files pertinent to the EU as a whole should be a valid topic to have under the EU. For example, Category:Geography of the European Union makes sense because there are contents there that apply across the Union. I would group all of the "Geography of <country>" categories into Category:Geography of the European Union by member country (or 'member state' if that is how the EU titles its members?).

However, just grouping topic by country categories for the member states is not a useful purpose (see Category:People of the European Union). The people topic is rightly a redirect and the contents there are merely a result of those countries having the EU set as a region.

This had come up in the past when discussing regional categories several years ago (one example I found is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/04/Category:Images of the Americas), and the idea was that real pan-regional content was needed for a region category to make sense. That might have been lost to time, but it is probably a good idea to revisit this and apply it more clearly:

1. In cases where content of a <Topic> exists that is relevant to an entire <Region>, a "<Topic> of <Region>" category can be made to contain this content. This can include any content which is relevant to the region, but cannot be diffused to a specific country (or countries) within that region. For example, a map of the entire region (or a large portion at least that covers most countries of the region) would qualify, as would an organization that covers many countries in the region (e.g. EASA for Europe).
2. In cases where there are "<Topic> of <Country>" categories for countries that are within a given region, and the "<Topic> of <Region>" category meets rationale 1 above, the topic of country categories should be added to "Category:<Topic> of <Region> by country".
3. In cases where there are "<Topic> of <Country>" categories for countries that are within a given region, but the "<Topic> of <Region>" category does not meet rationale 1 above. the topic of country category should not be added to this region category.
4. "<Topic> of <Region>" categories that do not have content beyond what would go in a "Category:<Topic> of <Region> by country" index should be deleted.

I realize that strictly-speaking the EU is not really a region, it is an international organization, but we are de facto handling it as a region here, and as for its relation to topic by country content, I think the same rationale apply. Josh (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. This can clear up the mess on the region-ness of the EU. EU members are called "member states", by the way. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Agree @Joshbaumgartner: Yes, that is a good proposal, thanks. JopkeB (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Application of the proposal of Josh to this category:

• Category:History of the European Union‎ should contain only subcategories that are relevant to the entire EU, not the History categories of the indivudual member states. I can remove them from Category:History of the European Union‎. And since the EU was only established in 1993, it is nonsense to have subcategories of Category:History of the European Union by decade‎ before 1993, same for by year. Am I right? Files from before 1993 should go into History categories of precursors of the EU (ECSC [1951-2002] and EEC [1958-1993]).
• Other categories where the country categories can be removed from:
  • Category:Activities in the European Union‎; here only: activities related to the EU.
  • Category:Higher education in the European Union‎ should be a subcategory of Category:Education in the European Union‎, where only Category:Educational policies and initiatives of the European Union‎ and other EU projects/programms for education should be. Educational institutes (like schools and universities) are all financed and governed by the member states themselves and have nothing to do with the EU. There are only agreements about recognition of each other's diplomas.
  • Category:Geography of the European Union‎: there were no changes because of the EU; borders, cities and other geography topics of the EU countries were established long before the EU was established or are established independant from the EU.
  • Information in the European Union‎; here only: information about or originating from the EU.
  • Internet in the European Union‎. But the category itself should stay and get Category:Next generation network as a subcategory, it is an inititive of the EU.
  • Most of Category:Society of the European Unionon]]‎, but there are exceptions (see below).
  • Statistics of the European Union‎: Keep only Eurostat here, the countries are focused on their own statistics.
• To stay:
  • Country categories of Category:Identity documents of the European Union‎ because they are part of the EU agreements, you can access any EU country with your EU passport, without a visum.
  • Country categories of Category:Society of the European Union that are to stay:
    • Category:Geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union‎
    • Category:Official languages of the European Union
    • Europeana‎ is an initiative of the EU, but is a project for the whole of Europe, including for example non-EU-members like Norway and Switzerland.
    • Category:Economy of the European Union‎: the EU was first established as an economic community, economy still is the base of it. A lot of EU countries would not have florished so much if they would not have been a member (to my opinion including the UK), and the euro has only strengthened that. So the economies of the member states are closely intertwined because of the EU and therefor these subcategories should stay here.
    • Category:Politics of the European Union: almost the same degree of intertwining as economics.

@Sbb1413 and Joshbaumgartner: Does this make sense? JopkeB (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB I agree with your implementation. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB To clarify, I don't think I recommended that 'X of country' be removed from 'X of the EU' if the EU category is otherwise valid, just that they should be in a 'X of the EU by country' index. Take the first item on your list of removals, Category:Activities in the European Union: I think that Category:Activities in Belgium can remain, but just under an index Category:Activities in the European Union by country. The problem with just simply removing it, is that some well meaning future editor is likely to just put it back.

I am okay with the rest of it as far as I can tell, so the only tweak I would make is to change that one section from "country categories can be removed from" to "country categories should be moved to a 'by country' index of". Other than that, looks great! Josh (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Thanks for the compliment. Still a question: What is the relation between Activities in Belgium (and other EU countries) with Activities in the European Union? In what way do they differ from activities in Norway and Switzerland (both not EU member states)? JopkeB (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB The relation is that Belgium is an EU country, and therefore activities there may be influenced or regulated in ways specific to the EU. Personally, I'm not a fan of categorizing countries by their affiliations with international organizations (I think lists and WD are better ways to do that), but there is no consensus to stop that practice, so I live with it. If we categorize Belgium under the EU, we should categorize activities in Belgium under activities in the EU, presuming they both exist. Josh (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: That is a sad conclusion that we should live with it, though we both do not agree. Does this also apply to the other subjects I mentioned under Other categories where the country categories can be removed from or can the rest of the proposal be implemented, of coarse combined with your remark that they should be in a 'X of the EU by country' index? JopkeB (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB Well if you want to raise the matter of categorizing countries by their international organization participation, I'll certainly support ending that practice. I suspect others will disagree. As for your question, I don't want to necessarily individually litigate every topic, but if there are contents other than 'topic of country' categories that rightly belong in a 'topic of the EU' category, then the 'topic of country' categories should be in a 'topic of the EU by country' index under 'topic of the EU'. If the only contents of the 'topic of the EU' are 'topic of country' categories, then the 'topic of the EU' category can be deleted. For instance, Category:Information in the European Union contains many 'information in country' categories, but also contains Category:Information graphics of the European Union, so the 'information in country' categories (e.g. Category:Information in Croatia) should be found in Category:Information in the European Union by country, an index under Information in the European Union. Does that answer the question? Josh (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB and Joshbaumgartner: I think the result of this discussion is to keep the EU categories that have pure pan-regional content and delete other categories. I'm fine with this conclusion, which can free up many useless region categories that are already fully diffused into country/subregion/city categories. Same is applicable for Category:Metropolitan areas like Category:Greater Kolkata, which is already full of subcats that are unfortunately found to be useless, and I'm guilty for creating those subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the {{Topic by country}} template should be modified to reflect the effect. But since only admins and template editors can edit the main layout subtemplate and Josh is currently inactive, the only non-admin way to fix the current issue is to comment certain parts of the subtemplates of {{Country label}}. I will then look for the solutions to implement the stricter regional categorization with a separate subtemplate of {{Topic by country}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Forts

I don't know why forts are categorized under fortresses and not the other way around? A fort is a building designed for defensive warfare, while a fortress is a large and permanent defensive building (or ensemble of buildings). A fort can be a permanent or temporary building. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither should be a parent of the other. Let them be parented to military installations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Or Fortifications. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That would be preferable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:History

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Past.

There's plenty of examples that are pretty easy to find but this whole category structure seems rather ambiguous and just keeps files from being put in more descriptive categories. Not that a category like this one wouldn't work in theory, for instance as a place to store files specifically related to the field of historical research and analysis. That's clearly not what it's being used for though. Instead it's just a dump of random images and categories that seem to have absolutely nothing in common with each other outside of someone thinking they are somehow "historical."

That's not to say I have a better idea though. Maybe move everything to more descriptive categories like "by date" and confine this category specifically to images that have to do with the field of historical research and analysis. Does anyone have any objections to that or a better idea? Because I'm pretty sick of repeatedly coming across and fixing the mess that this whole thing has created. There really needs to be a clear, long-term solution to this chaos. Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think people conflate History (the study of humans' past and historical events) and Past (no focus on the study/education of it, not just historical events but also e.g. daily life and developments/trends more than in the context of History, not just about humans' recorded past or humans' past in general). But this doesn't seem to be the subject here precisely and I don't fully understand what exactly is discussed here...for example there is no concrete proposed change and obviously the overall category is valid and needs to stay. If one would ask me I'd reorganize by broader "Past" but that's not easy, would need to be done over time and very carefully, and on the Main page Cat:History is linked. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Maybe you missed it, but I actually proposed confining this to the actual study and analysis of history while moving everything else to more relevant "by date" or "by subject" categories depending on the situation. I generally agree with your comment overall though. The problem is that people will just dump random images in an "history of whatever" category 15 places down the line instead of finding somewhere more appropriate. I think that can mainly be solved moving out most everything in this to better cateogries that have nothing to do with "history" to begin with though. Like I recently a "history of" category for a location where the only files in it we're from last year. The whole thing is just an excuse to do lazy categorizing. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you missed it, but I actually proposed confining this to the actual study and analysis of history while moving everything else to more relevant "by date" or "by subject" categories depending on the situation. We already have Historiography for the actual study and analysis of history, isn't it? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: It's super pedantic but historiography is "the study of the methods used by historians in developing history as an academic discipline", not the study and analysis of history as such. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep the history categories if either or all of the following criteria satisfy:

• The history caregory covers both the past events and the historiography (historical research, study and analysis) of the given topic.
• The history of an entity is divided into widely recognisable periods, like Middle Ages, Early Modern Age etc.
• The corresponding event category is missing. This is especially applicable for geographical categories, like countries, regions, cities etc.
• The "by date" or "by subject" categories are not well-developed.

Otherwise, the history category will be deleted. However, thanks to the automatic categorization templates introduced by Joshbaumgartner, deleting a history category of certain countries or subdivisions may break the chain of categorization, unless the user introduces mechanisms to avoid such hypothetical events. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 It depends on the details of what exactly is being changed, but the template is based off of the current structure of Category:History. If that structure changes, then of course, the relevant bits of the data template should be adjusted to match. In some cases if something is oddball enough, we may have to (at least temporarily) fall back on manual categorization for some history-related parents. In any case, I wouldn't really worry about the template in this discussion. Just reach the best conclusion for Commons and the history category tree. If you ping me with the specifics, I'll gladly see what tweaks can be made to keep the templates in line with the latest changes. Josh (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This should be about navigation, not ontology. If "history of France" doesn't end up under "history", we have a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yeah, but what exactly qualifies something as "historical" or worthy of being in a category having to do with "history"? Like if there's a category called "history of X church" containing images that are fairly recent and don't necessary show any "history" (however you'd define it) is that OK or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep, but strip the category from all files currently in it. The 28k+ images in this category are an intractable mess; they're a mixture of old photos from various (mostly American) collections, photos of old objects, images from old books and maps, modern maps of ancient history, and a handful of modern photos which have slipped in by mistake. Everything in here is effectively uncategorized; throwing it back into the {{Unc}} slush pile will at least give it a chance of being filed somewhere more appropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: I don't have a problem with that. The question is how to handle things further down the line where there's the same issue. I guess we could do the same thing, except maybe up merging the files instead of just un-categorizing them. But that would probably involve deleting a lot of "history of" categories, which your comment seems to be against, and I'd also like to get a good idea of exactly what the purpose of this category is before doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Permanent diffusion, just like what we already have to do with other catch-all categories like Category:Photography or Category:People. "History of X" categories should be categorized under "X", not "History", just like "Topic in Year" should be categorized under "Topic" but not "Year". Omphalographer (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Again, it's not about "what qualifies has historical". It's about navigation. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it is hard to imagine an image that belongs directly in this category. Edits like are counterproductive: they don't usefully categorize the image, they just partly hide the fact that it is effectively uncategorized. - Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Further evidence of Fæ's "legacy". While it's possible to identify the individuals in that photo, what sort of hints are offered by a title such "...) Red(...) to send (Ford?) to Japan"? Sheesh. I don't necessarily want to dump on Fæ in their absence, but the countless files that are poorly described, poorly categorized (including some which have been in that state for as long as 10–12 years), including some of questionable COM:SCOPE, makes me wonder why some people are happy to keep pushing "quantity over quality". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a good start to "strip the category from all files currently in it", is to move files from the Library of Congress to a category like Category:Media from Library of Congress to categorize‎ (with Category:Files needing categories by source as one of the parents, and NOT a hidden category, because otherwise the files will be automatically copied to a "Media needing categories" category, what should not be done). About 25k from the 28k files are from the LOC (see query), so that would make already quite a relief. Is there another method than using Cat-a-lot to do so? JopkeB (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Relevant past discussions on using the phrase "History" or "Historical" in category names: History of Africa by century (and others), Historical images, Historical speeches. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Historical images is an interesting one since there was clearly a consensus to depreciate it but yet there's still 34,494 categories involving the term "historical images." Sheesh...We should at least have a single category for this if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

156,302 categories using "historic" in their name to BTW. Category:Historic motorsport being a sub-category of Category:History of motorsports gives a me a particular laugh for some reason lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Yes, there is a problem with catch-all categories like History. But changing the definition or purpose of it, will not help prevent the dumping. Uploaders who are not familiar with the Commons category structure will continue to add their uploads to easy to find categories. (And I guess editors who's job it is to empty categories "Media needing categories as of date month year" might also do so, and I would not blame them, in the hope that the rest of us will pick up the challenge.)

I am pro a broad definition of "History", like it is used in everyday speech, and not limit it to store files specifically related to the field of historical research and analysis. Perhaps create something like for Economy\Economics has been done: Category:Economy is for the real thing as everybody knows it (money, business, economic problems) and one of its subcategories Category:Economics is for scientific theories (which might include research and analysis).

And I think that we should continue to categorize "History of X" categories under "X" AND (a subcategory of) "History"; "Topic in Year" should be categorized under "Topic" AND (a subcategory of) "Year". Reasons:

• I, not a historian, use (subcategories of) History often to find categories about anything of the past, like dates, events, paintings, books and many other subjects. And I think other people (editors and end users alike) will profit from this category structure as well. So please keep it this way.
• This is how the category structure on Commons is and works: if a category name involves two concepts (like "History" and "X") then this category should have parents for both concepts. Please, let there be no exceptions, it will only make the category structure less transparent and less useful, and perhaps more problematic.

We "just" have to stimulate that files should first of all be put in a topic category, and only then in a History category or any other. And if you are sick of it, you may move files from time to time to a (new or existing) subcategory of Category:Files needing categories by source, Category:Uncategorized files by language of description or another subcategory of Category:Files needing categories. And of course you can help by properly categorizing files in those categories and other overpopulates categories from time to time (but I am sure most of you already do). --JopkeB (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing the definition or purpose of it, will not help prevent the dumping. Obviously. It doesn't currently have a definition or purpose though, and you can't change something that doesn't exist to begin with. That's a large part of the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

For Commons a description might be (as a starter, please correct and adjust): This category is for media showing what took place in the past, how organisms and objects looked like and activities were done in the past; it covers all aspects of earth. Please add only subcategories to your files that are as specific as possible. JopkeB (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment It's outright false to claim that the problem lies with this category's mere existence. Between spot-checking revision histories of files and contributions of editors, the problem lies squarely with editors who rely on Cat-a-lot and HotCat as a substitute for human judgement. I've observed clear patterns of either dumping uncategorized files in an overloaded main category for the sake of saying they've been categorized, or swapping one overloaded main category for another without regard for what COM:CAT says about specificity of categorization. Some editors have been engaging in this sort of behavior for many years across the project, making this yet another pointless siloed micro-discussion that avoids the bigger picture. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What solution do you propose? JopkeB (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:History I decided to implement JopkeB's proposal here, about moving almost all files to Category:Media from Library of Congress to categorize. I have started a bot run with my bot. I don't know how to close discussion here, please, close it. MBH 12:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion (about Category:History) is not yet finished, only your question about how to "strip the category from all files currently in it" may be on track. We are still discussing the purpose and a description, what should it be about, what should be in it and what not, and perhaps many more subjects. So it will take a while before we'll reach a conclusion. But I am glad I could help for this part of the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Bot run is over, 2829 files still in category. MBH 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@MBH: Thanks for doing the bot run. Unfortunately there's still the same issue further down that needs to be dealt with. So I don't think this should be closed just yet, but I do appreciate that the files in the main category are being dealt with in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Someone seems to have created Category:Historic views and a bunch of subcategories for it a few days ago. I had already started a CfD for "views" and there seems to be agreement in it that "views" needs to be dealt with somehow. Regardless, we now have a bunch of categories for "history", "historical", and "historic" subjects. I can kind of understand if certain people in this discussion (@Jmabel: ) don't want to make this about definitions, but I feel like multiple category names for what are essentially the same concepts are bound to occur without one. Regardless, can we at least agree on a single name to use for subjects having to do with "history" even if there doesn't seem to be a consensus about how to deal with the wider problem with the category at this point? Because it's totally ridiculous to have three different category names for what's essentially the same concept regardless of what that concept ends up being once this is resolved. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Category:Historic views: absolutely ridiculous. I will nominate for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits like [1] are counterproductive: they don't usefully categorize the image, they just partly hide the fact that it is effectively uncategorized. @Jmabel: So what's your solution then? Turn these into metacats or whatever that can only contain other categories? I'd probably support something like that but I don't really see people not just using the categories as dumps for random images that should be in better ones otherwise. Plus you could probably argue files shouldn't be put directly in the categories to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, possibly not a metacat as such. A metacat isn't just a category that shouldn't have images directly in it, it's one where images directly in the category make no logical sense. E.g. it would be literally meaningless to stick Category:Buildings in the United States by state on an image. Not just vague, meaningless. Not having images directly in Category:History is more like not having any images directly in Category:United States. At the very least, this needs {{Categorize}}; arguably, even the wording there isn't strong enough.

I stand by my statement that it is more useful to have an image marked overtly as needing categories than to add a category so vague that it still comes down to "this image needs categories" but that is no longer explicit - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Fair enough. What do you think about having "history" categories for random natural objects like Category:History of caves or Category:History of animals? I could a see a category for the history of something like a country, but one for caves or bears seems a little weird. I think the study of those things in the past would just be part of normal geology and paleontology. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to think the same. Conversely, for purely navigational purposes I think Category:Historical images of caves and Category:Historical images of animals (currently a redirect, probably shouldn't be) make sense but, please, not a raw Category:Historical images. The image isn't historical in its own right; things like Category:Historical images of Mammoth Cave National Park‎ are just a way of sectioning out stuff no one would want to use as a current portrayal, images that would almost certainly only be used to illustrate the history of human interaction with the cave. - Jmabel ! talk 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete. Any cutoff for "history" or "historical" will change every second/minute/hour/week/month/year/century/millennium (as an extrapolation from Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Am I correct to assume you have the same opinion about the various "historical photographs" categories that exist on here? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Yes, unless there is a specific objective cutoff like "20th Century" or "World War II", or even "PD-US-expired".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Certain adjectives I've seen used in the US can serve that purpose, like turn-of-the-century (within say 10 years of 1900), antebellum (before the American Civil War started in 1861), and prohibition-era (1919-1933).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I suggest making this a metacat, no individual files belong here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly a metacat, but if kept it should certainly use {{CatCat}}. That is subtly different from a metacat, which specifically is a category that groups other categories according to some specific criterion (e.g. Category:History by country or Category:History of China by period). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 31 aug 2024 01:17‎‎ (UTC)

•  Comment: The CfD:Past is at immediate odds with this one, as the OP claims that all past is history and should be merged here. I personally would like to have both kept, by the way; but I think this level of debate over the most overarching principles as "too vague" is concerning. As if "History" is not a category that people expect to exist, and as if history is not a term that should be included in every language version. But sure, we cannot have "history" anymore! --Enyavar (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Individual images have been removed or recategorized so there are no longer any in this meta-category. I think that's the only issue that consensus decided needed addressing. I suggest closing this discussion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the subcategories have the same issue and I don't think just turning them into catcats is necessarily a good solution. At the end of the day this should be turned into a category purely for the academic study of history, just as a category like Category:Universe has to do with the scientific study of universes, not random images of things in the universe. There's clearly no consensus for that though. So I support this being closed per Infrogmation, but with the cavate that the child categories should also be emptied and turned into catcats. Thanks to both Infrogmation and Enyavar for cleaning up what was left after the bot edit. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Skin pigmentation

The usefulness and definition of this category seems spurious at best and it hardly contains anything to begin with. So my suggestion is that it just be deleted. I'm sure there's more descriptive categories everything in here can be put into anyway. Anyone have an issue with that or a better alternative? Adamant1 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe

Merge to Category:Human skin color. However, pigmentation is broader than that in two ways: 1) not just humans but any animals with skin 2) skin pigmentation doesn't just concern skin color (the other subjects are currently mostly located in Category:Human skin). In doubt  Keep for now since the category is valid but is only not well populated. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Most, if not, all animals have skin pigmentation to some degree. So I don't really see how its a useful category in that regard. There's already Category:Animals by color. Anything beyond that is a distiction without a purpose and just recreates already exiting categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The subject is not whether or not there is skin pigmentation but how, disorders, depictions, and ways to modify it and so on. That should already be clear by the contents. See e.g. Melanocyte (this is just one example). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It's clear there's a lot of stuff in this category that is spuriously connected. I said as much in my original comment. So I'm glad we agree that this covers a bunch of things that questionably have anything to do with each other or "skin pigmentation" per se. To give one example there's Category:White (human racial classification) which contains Category:White culture. Maybe I missed it in biology class but what exactly does "White culture" have to do with this category? You'd have to agree that "white culture" and chameleons have absolutely nothing in common. Sure, I guess there's a couple of categories having to do with disorders in the meantime like Category:Solar lentigo. But then again there's already Category:Melanocytes. So your just replacing melanin with pigmentation and acting like there's a meaningful difference there that somehow magically comes across in the images in Category:Solar lentigo when there isn't one. So there's really nothing in this that can't be or isn't already in better categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I'm with you on Category:White (human racial classification), but for different reasons. Because we don't characterize the nature of each category inheritance (in general, it's navigational, not ontological), categories at two or more removes can often be tangentially related or worse. For example, Category:Nazism => Category:Antifascist resistance => Category:Anti-racism => Category:Black Lives Matter => various demonstrations and protests that certainly have little relation to Nazism.

The problem with including Category:White (human racial classification) is that it isn't about skin pigmentation, it's about a social construct. In the U.S., between roughly the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, the Irish, the Italians, and the Jews successively "became white." An African-American albino, with no melanin at all, is not considered "white", nor is an East Asian with considerably lighter skin than most "white" people. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's about a social construct but that construct is linked to human genetics associated with a certain skin pigmentation. One can also consider gender a social construct but it's nevertheless associated with human sex with there being many outliers or unusual cases just like there are outliers for human skin color. The classification may be very problematic but it's nevertheless referencing skin pigmentation and as such seems appropriate in this cat. The classification is not about skin color, it is about a human-discernible correlate with a postulated genetical cluster among human genetic identifiable clusters but if one was to cluster humans biologically this approach could be flawed and other names would make more sense that reference regions such as the ones here:

And eg Italians were always white in the sense of the classification since a certain time. All of this is fairly offtopic, the category seems valid but incomplete and not sufficiently combined with the Human skin color cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Weimar in the National Socialism

Poorly named. Maybe Category:Weimar during National Socialism? Category:Weimar in the Nazi era? Anyway, "in the National Socialism" is terrible English. Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally would have no problem with the German term Nazizeit, but suspect it would mean little to most English-speakers, hence the suggestion of "the Nazi era". - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Rename to National Socialism in Weimar, consistent with the parent National Socialism in Thuringia. I think "National Socialism" (or "Nazism") actually refers to the ideology of the Nazi party, while the actual period should be called "Nazi era". However, since the Nazi era is referred to as "National Socialism" throughout Commons, it is better to follow this scheme. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Dudson, United Kingdom

Empty category. merged into Dudson Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Category:Dudson is part of a company in Stoke-on-Trent and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the band. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Unicode 2200-22FF Mathematical Operators

Do we really need separate categories for every single Unicode Operator? I don't think most people have the ability to search for or find them based purely on their symbol anyway and that's the only I can think of that individual categories for each one would be useful. Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

These are not just symbols, they have properties describing the usage and avoid confusions. Some properties are in the Infobox, others are in Wikidata. The parent categories are also different, because of their properties and encodings.Mixing everything (including for various styles from various fonts or from other sources) will not help disambiguate them. That's the same problem as for all categories fro individual characters: without these categories, everything is mixed up and confusion and misuses are everywhere. It is important to be able to attach there normative or informative properties with Wikidata Items, which also contains many relevant links and allows proper linking to the most relevant articles in other wikis. The data in Commons itself is terse but should be sufficient to match Wikidata items, and allo proper internationalisation (without making any assumption about a single locale or a single "common" usage which is not relevant for everything or everyone). Categories for individual characters have been approved many times (this does not mean that these categories must not them selves be super-categorized into the same single parent category because almost all of them have multiple parent categories that are relevant per their properties!) Note that the category includes a list showing all relevant characters with some basic description and grouping (this list can also be used in searches in this wiki; the list may be shown with the "unhide/hide" button on the right), so searchability is not an issue; as well the Wikidata properties in their nfobox and relevant wikilinks are displayed in each subcategory per character; each subcategory may contain multiple images for different styles or usages specific to that character. verdy_p (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also there are many ways to search or find these symbols and identify them precisely: it's up to us to properly categorise them, document their properties (with Wikidata Infoboxes) and add descriptions. The Unicode code point is not just the only usable property, the block itself provides its own documentation with the characters list (partially described by group, according to Unicode charts), and references (along with other interwiki links e.g. to Wikipedia or Wiktionnary). The local search engine of Wikidata (as well as external search engines) properly reads all these info, look at existing characters that are already categorized. All this will then allow correct identification and avoid many possible confusions. All Unicode characters should have their category and their Wikidata entry, and a representative glyph. Unicode documents many things about them. We just have to use these infos. Then Commons slowly becomes a useful popular reference and helper for many users and plays its best role. verdy_p (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that all Unicode characters have already been decided multiple times to be eligible for their own category (by community consensus), notably because of the difficulty to organize and search them, by their various properties and documented usages, that are patiently integrated in Commons and Wikidata (this is a huge work constantly in progress since many years). verdy_p (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:AI-generated images by subject

• Category:AI-generated faces
• Category:AI-generated animals
• Category:AI-generated humans
• Category:AI-generated portraits
• Category:AI-generated mythology
• Category:AI-generated interior illustrations
• Category:AI-generated cyborgs
• Category:AI-generated inscriptions
• Category:AI-generated photographs
• Category:AI-generated architecture
• Category:AI-generated book and magazine covers
• Category:AI-generated clothing
• Category:AI-generated LGBT
• Category:AI-generated fictional characters
• Category:AI-generated erotic art
• Category:AI-generated images of historical events
• Category:AI-generated hybrids
• Category:AI-generated food
• Category:AI-generated sports
• Category:AI-generated objects
• Category:AI-generated nature
• Category:AI-generated icons
• Category:AI-generated abstract art
• Category:AI-generated beverages
• Category:AI-generated utopias
• Category:AI-generated dystopias
• Category:AI-generated geometric shapes
• Category:AI-generated extraterrestrials
• Category:AI-generated action scenes

The naming of the categories in this just seem wrong. These aren't images of objects created by AI, which is how "AI-generated X" sounds. They are images of specific subjects generated by AI. To give an example in case it's not clear Category:AI-generated clothing sounds like a category for images of real world clothing that was with AI. Not AI generated artwork of clothes. Not that I have a perfect solution. Maybe turning everything into categories named "AI generated artwork of X" would resolve it. At least that would make it totally clear that we are talking about "AI generated artwork" here and not "real world objects generated with AI" or whatever. Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe with Commons' default word "view"? Such as "AI-generated views of ..". Enhancing999 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Agree with Adamant1, that categories like Category:AI-generated food should be renamed to Category:AI-generated images of food or something similar. I do not like "AI-generated views of .." suggestion as much. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

good idea, let's go with "AI-generated images of ..." Enhancing999 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Agree Also thought it was problematic, especially in the case of Category:AI-generated music which should also be renamed or split. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Massy (Essonne)

Which form should we use for subcategories (Quel format pour les sous-catégories)? Currently there is

• 1. Streetname (Massy, Essonne)
• 2. Streetname (Massy)
• 3. Streetname in Massy (Essone)
• 4. Streetname à Massy
• 5. Streetname

Personally, I'd avoid #3, #4 and #5. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Government agencies

Anyone know what the real world, practical difference between this category and Category:Government organizations is aside from some government organizations using the word "agency" in their name and some not? Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep — According to Wikipedia, a government agency is "a permanent or semi-permanent organization in the machinery of government (bureaucracy) that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions" and it is "normally distinct both from a department or ministry, and other types of public body established by government". Some countries maintain a distinction between a government agency and other government organizations (e.g. the US) while others don't (e.g. India). But it does not mean the whole hierarchy should be obliterated. If there's no distinction between a government agency and other government organizations for a country, the government agencies category may be redirected to the government organizations category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If the only difference between the two is how government agencies exist for then I'd say that's not something worth having a separate category structure for. We certainly don't organize categories for other organizations based on how long they plan to be around for. Let alone is that information something most people have access to or care about. I can guarantee that 99% of the categories in this were put there because "agency" was the word that came to mind at the time and not because thought "well, this is probably only going to be a thing for 10 years so I'll put it in Category:Government agencies instead of Category:Government organizations." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because the Wikipedia definition has "permanent or semi-permanent" does not mean we should organize government agencies based on how long they plan to be around for. The main point of the definition is that a government agency "is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions" and it is "normally distinct both from a department or ministry, and other types of public body established by government". Departments and ministries are government organizations, military forces are government organizations, and even legislatures, executives and the judiciary can be considered as government organizations, since the latter three are main parts of a government. The government itself can be considered as an organization. That is, organizations are everything from apples to zippers. Agencies are a special type of organizations that cannot be classified as departments, ministries etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your the one who brought up them being "permanent or semi-permanent" to begin with. I never said I thought that's how we should organize things. I'm interested to know exactly how you think we should though since I don't really see you providing a good way of categorizing things related to government organizations/agencies even though you've clearly written a lot here and support keeping the category. Cool, say we keep it. How do we actually decide what goes in which category and convey that to normal people who just want to categorize something without needing a degree in government policy or them having to research it first? Like what are the actual differences here that warrants both categories? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Government agencies are, as Sbb1413 wrote, part of one (sometimes several) ministries with their own function and a separate status, which cannot be classified as departments or ministries. I think to decide what goes in which category we can be practical: when an organization is called a "Government agency" then we categorize it as such. Do you have examples when this causes trouble? JopkeB (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Like everything in Category:Government agencies of China. It's not really clear if any of those categories are for "agencies" or "organizations." There's also plenty of categories for "bureaus" BTW. As well as "government institutions." Should we have a separate category for those to? The whole thing just seems pointless and only applicable to a few Western countries here's a clear division between the various types of government bodies. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right, this looks a little bit like a mess. I would move Category:Government ministries of the People's Republic of China‎ to Category:Government of the People's Republic of China and Category:Ministry of Railways (China)‎ to the ministries category, and leave the rest as it is (because I have not enough knowledge of China to improve it more) and not bother about it anymore. JopkeB (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please  Keep, for the reasons Sbb1413 mentions. For countries that have no agencies, categories are not needed, which also applies to many other topics. JopkeB (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Artisans

It's not really clear what the difference between this and Category:Artists is. Anyone have any ideas or should the two categories just be combined? Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, an artist is "a person engaged in an activity related to creating art, practicing the arts, or demonstrating an art. The common usage in both everyday speech and academic discourse refers to a practitioner in the visual arts only. However, the term is also often used in the entertainment business, especially in a business context, for musicians and other performers (although less often for actors)." On the other hand, an artisan is "a skilled craft worker who makes or creates material objects partly or entirely by hand." That is, artists are related to mainly art or the arts, while artisans are related to arts and crafts, crafts, or handicrafts. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't neccesarily disagree with that in theory. The problem is that I don't think anyone else gets the distiction or that's even a meaningful one to sort organize categories with. If you look at this category it's a child of Category:Arts occupations. So clearly anyone put in the category will be an "artist" due to the nature of the thing. A lot of these things also involve "art." But if someone creates an extremely artistic book cover for instance I assume you'd say they are an "artisan" but if they were to create the exact same thing on a canvas then their magically somehow "artists." Both involve art and someone creating art "by hand." The same goes for something like jewellery makers. A lot of times jewelry is made purely for the artistic merit. So are jewelry makers not artists just because they create the item "by hand" or whatever? it's totally arbitrary. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

For me the distinction is meaningful. Artists usually have more freedom in their work, need a lot of creativity, make unique objects, even when they work on commission. While artisans make goods that usually are being used in everyday life and those goods can look a lot like similar goods (s)he and fellow artisans (craft workers) make, and they need less creativity because they usually work with standards. Perhaps a good example is Tailors, who are artisans, versus Fashion designers who are artists: both make clothing, but clothing of fashion designers are usually artistic and fairly unique, while clothing from tailors usually look a lot alike (same fabric, same cut, only different sizes).

You do have a point though that Category:Artisans is now a child of Category:Arts occupations, that does not seem right. We should invent another parent.

And I think that someone who creates artistic book covers may be called an artist, because artistic book covers are unique and require a lot of creativity.

So for me the distinguishing criterion is the degree of creativity that is involved in the work. JopkeB (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

So the discussion should be about: What should the category structure of [[:Category:Artisans] be? Should Category:Arts occupations be a parent?

To make a clear distinction, I think Category:Arts occupations should not be a parent. Perhaps there should be a category like "Artistic jewellery makers" (and other artisan occupations that also have an artistic side) and that category should get Category:Arts occupations as a parent.

@Adamant1 and Sbb1413: What do you think? JopkeB (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1 and Sbb1413: Again --JopkeB (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB: I think the parent should be Category:Craft occupations, but Category:Crafts is also under discussion. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/12/Category:Arts and crafts. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: Category:Craft occupations is already a parent. And Category:Artisans is also a child of Category:Craftsmen, which is also a child of Category:Craft occupations, which is over-categorization. So perhaps we can skip Category:Craft occupations as a parent and keep Category:Artisans. And Category:Arts occupations is redundant for the same reason (it is a parent of Category:Craft occupations). So we also should skip Arts occupations as a parent. Perhaps there is more cleaning up to do when we would digg deeper. JopkeB (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@JopkeB: Category:Craftsmen is redundant to Category:Artisans, as the term "craftsman" refers to an artisan (see wikt:craftsman). I will dig deeper for over-categorization. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Electrical devices

It's not really clear what the difference between this and Category:Electronic devices is and "electrical" seems like an outdated or niche term. So does anyone care if I just everything in this into Category:Electronic devices and redirect it? Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

w:Electrical device is any device that uses electricity in some way. Electronic device implies the use of w:electronics such as transistors, so often more complex devices. I don't think they're quite the same. Ranveig (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree in theory, but that's clearly not how people are using this category. From what I can essentially everything in here is electronic. I can't think of an instance of anything that uses electricity without containing electronic components either. Do you have any actual examples? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

There are several examples of electrical devices that don't always use electronic components, and many of them were developed before the discovery of electrons, like telegraphs, electrodes, tungsten and fluorescent lamps, generators and motors, electromagnets, etc. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I lot of telegraph used electronic components. Same goes for everything else you've mentioned. It really depends on the time period it was created and model. Regardless, I was hopping for an example that actually relates to this. Category:Telegraph instruments isn't in this category to begin with. Nor should it or any of your other examples be IMO because they aren't "devices" as such. Otherwise we might as well include keys and kites in this category because someone used both to generate electricity once. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Examples may be a lot of Category:Home appliances. Like vacuum cleaners, toasters and refrigerators? And we have to keep at least a category for the period electical devices did not have electronic parts. JopkeB (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Cows are categorised as cattle, so will cattle not be categorised as cows. --Stunteltje (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Saint Cyril

Move to disambiguation per en:Saint Cyril to avoid confusion with Category:Cyril of Jerusalem Category:Cyril of Alexandria, Category:Cyril of Turov, Category:Pope Cyril V of Alexandria and Category:Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria. Move content to Category:Saint Cyril the Philosopher. Same with related subcategories like Category:Saint Cyril churches. -- 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'd keep it that way given that most subcategories are about this saint. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)