Category:Transport diagrams

This should not be in Category:Transport statistics and statistics files in here moved to there. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support, since transport diagrams are not always statistical. A road diagram is never used in statistics. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support! @Elkost: special:diff/204351580. --Luan (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you, as diagrams are not only for statistics. We have to remove the discussed category and additionally 2 other cats:

• “Category:Diagrams about society” – to avoid over-categorization through the parent “Category:Economic diagrams” leading to it;
• “Category:Road space consumption” – improper as its parent “Category:Road transport” is a subcategory of “Category:Transport”.

--Elkost (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Headmasters

The current category name is too masculist (i.e. not following the gender-neutral language we use in people category names). Suggest renaming to Category:Head teachers, as it is used in Wikidata and Wikipedia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Saraswati puja at Baranagore Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama High School by year

Trivial "by year" category, as all three subcats have only one pic each. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hindu yogis

Although yoga is practised by people of different religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and later Christianity, Islam), it is trivializing to categorize yogis by religion, considering that yoga itself is deeply associated with Indian religions, particularly Hinduism. So it is not suprising that most yogis are Hindus. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Yogini

This category and its subcats (Category:Yogini (Buddhist), Category:Yogini (Hindu), and Category:Yogini (modern)) are rather confusing. Are these categories for female humans (including both girls and women) who practise yoga, or about a goddess worshipped in different Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism)? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bengali writers

• Category:Bengali writers
• Category:Punjabi writers

These categories are ambiguous, as they can refer to either the writers who are also Bengali or Punjabi people, or the writers who write books in Bengali or Punjabi, or both. Since ethnicity is not something we use when we diffuse individual writers, I suggest merging this category to Category:Bengali-language writers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are some other writer categories based on ethnicities that don't correspond to certain administrative regions, like Category:Writers from the Basque Country (aka "Basque writers"), Category:Writers from Occitania (aka "Occitan writers"). Note that Category:Punjabi writers is as ambiguous as Category:Bengali writers, so I've tagged that category too. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This writer is called both a "Punjabi writer" and a "Punjabi-language writer" in his his article Krok6kola (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Yamagata Train by Immanuelle

I think identifying the train line and making this into a category for images of and from the train line is a better option Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Panoramas of cities by country

As per commons cat naming practice, the tree Category:Categories by city, and previously pointed out in Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Panoramics of cities, subcats should be named "panoramas of <country> by city". RoyZuo (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we should be discussing the subcats, not this one.

Categories named "Panoramas of <country> by city" would be metacats, but the subcats here aren't all set up as metacats: most of them contain files. We'd have to either move the files to "Panoramas of <country>" or restructure this subtree. For example:

Panoramas of cities by country

Panoramas of cities in Germany -- could contain files

Panoramas of Germany by city -- metacats that would contain only subcats

Panoramas of Ahaus

Panoramas of Amberg

etc.

The second option seems a bit complicated. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Isnt it strange that a photo gets categorised into "Panoramas of cities in xx"? Do people not know which city the photo is showing? If people know that, then why is it not categorised under "panoramas of xx city"? Do we see a cat tree "Category:Photographs of cities in xx"? Categorising files to as precice as the city level is very basic commons practice. RoyZuo (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Most people probably know what city their upload shows, but maybe not all. I know I have a lot of photos I took in Scandinavia, but I don't know what they show because circumstances at the time kept me from keeping track.

Even if the city is known, there can be reasons for not putting an image in a city-specific category. Maybe a user is uploading a lot of photos of multiple cities and they put them in the general category until they can sort them. Maybe there isn't a category for a given city and the user doesn't feel that the situation justifies creating one (such as only one image).

In any case, "Panoramas of cities in <country>" is not a category name that says "subcats only". At most, we could put {{Categorise}} on it, but not {{CatCat}}. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Then users will use "Panoramas of <country>" just like videos get categorised under "Category:Videos by country". Users upload a lot more videos than panoramas, yet it's working well. Why is there a need for an extra layer of maintenance cat for this specific kind of photos of cities that can be easily identified by local users? RoyZuo (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my preference, hence my option #1 above. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep as it is in the Category:Panoramas of cities by country with 46 entries "panoramas of cities in <country>". Advantage --> could contain files, as User:Auntof6 shows above. Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 17:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep per User:Auntof6 and User:Triplec85 --Lukas Beck (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sakura in art

"Sakura" and "Cherry blossoms" are arguably synonyms, so renaming it to Category:Cherry blossoms in art of Japan would make it less ambiguous with Category:Cherry blossoms in art (and more consistent with similar category names, e.g. categories in Category:Flowers in art of Japan) Spenĉjo (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As creator of the original category, no real objection here. —holly {chat} 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:FC Bayern Munich and many subcategories

I renamed the city name in the title to match the English Wikipedia article and the corresponding Wikimedia Commons category (München → Munich). User:Chaddy thinks my actions were wrong and insists on naming the category according to the German version. I ask other participants to resolve this dispute. Thank you. Mitte27 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am very disappointed. What you did here is completely uncooperative. ALL German sports clubs' categories have their German name on Commons. The only exemption from that is Bayern München now. You simply created facts without any discussion before and against the usual practice. That is the completely wrong way. And instead of going back to the status quo ante, now you force us to discuss this here, where decisions can take months or even years? - I was so stupid to seek a cooperative outcome on your user disc. I simply should have reverted your edits.

@all: My arguments can be found here. -- Chaddy (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Revert the rename. My initial arguments can currently be found at COM:AN#Category:FC Bayern München/Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories, and will be archived in due time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikimedia Commons proper names are given in English. There are no categories like Category:ПФК ЦСКА Москва (PFC CSKA Moscow) or Category:النادي الأهلي الرياضي السعودي‎ (Al-Ahli SC). There should be no exceptions for Bayern or any other football clubs. We are just wasting time on a pointless discussion when the proper name is already in the English Wikipedia. The category about the city itself is called Munich and no one objects. --Mitte27 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikimedia Commons proper names are not always given in English if there is no established English version. Stop violating policy COM:C. The proper name of the club is officially "FC Bayern München AG".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

However, reliable sources sources in English list the name as Bayern Munich (britannica, fifa.com, espn, bbc.com, goal.com, skysports, Guardian, New York Times, dw.com, foxsports.com, forbes, soccerway,, eurosport). --Mitte27 (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we would translate the name why is only München translated but Bayern and FC is not? The full translated title would be "Soccer club/SC Bavaria Munich". GPSLeo (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the version that is most commonly used in English (see English Wikipedia + Wikidata + Britannica + various media). Mitte27 (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Revert the rename: Even though I'm not at all interested in football and I'm also Swiss, but there are a lot of FC Bayern München fans in our country (side note), this renaming makes absolutely no sense and Chaddy and Jeff G. have already sufficiently explained why it was not very clever. And Jeff, you rightly mentioned: disrespectful towards the German colleagues. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 08:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Of course, the renaming also affects all subcategories that are currently incorrectly named. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 09:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  @איז「Ysa」: Yes, there were more subsubcategories that I found Mitte27 to have renamed. I tagged the redirects with COM:CSD#G6.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Revert the rename: As a proper name, the club name should not be translated into English. --Lukas Beck  Abstain I understand both sides in this conflict and would therefore like to abstain --Lukas Beck (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC) (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  And if it is translated then leaving half of the name untranslated doesn't make sense, i.e. "Bayern" is German for "Bavaria", so the translation would be "FC Bavaria Munich". The name "FC Bayern Munich" is an odd mixture of German and English. Nakonana (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Revert the rename: As a proper name, the club name should not be translated into English. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Keep Commons' names are written in English, and the most common English spelling is FC Bayern Munich as demostrated by e.g. enwiki and links above presented by @Mitte27. There is no reason that German football clubs categories should be called in German on Commons. Well very well (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  If the only reason that German clubs are called in German but Arabic and Russian in English is that German is written in Latin while the other two languages are written in another script — then that is disrespectful to Arabic- and Russian-speaking community. Well very well (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Could I name all categories about Russian entities, created by me, on Russian? Will oppose be a sign of disrespect for Russia and Russians? A letter "u:" can't even be typed on normal keyboard, all categories on Commons should be named English, no exceptions. MBH 11:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Could I name all categories about Russian entities, created by me, on Russian? Will oppose be a sign of disrespect for Russia and Russians? A letter "u:" can't even be typed on normal keyboard, all categories on Commons should be named English, no exceptions.

  There is an exception to the oft cited "all categories should be in English" doctrine. The actual policy (COM:LP) says (bold is mine), "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." FC Bayern München does not have a single established English translation, with multiple translations in common use. But the problem is that we give leeway to non-English languages that use the Latin script and forcibly rename categories to English for languages that don't use the Latin script, which is a longstanding covert discrimination in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note that there is further support on the German form of the Village Pump (Commons:Forum#Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/12/Category:FC_Bayern_Munich) for also naming categories of proper Russian names in cyrillic and to rely on infoboxes based on structured data regarding translation. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Renamed back per special:diff/967554093.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• You closed the discussion immediately as opposing votes started to appear. The discussion has lasted less than 12 hours, the recommended in the rules duration is at least 2 weeks. Well very well (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Well very well: The cat was renamed back (the rename was reverted) already by an Admin. What is left to discuss?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.The category has been reset. However, the planned change should still be discussed. Lukas Beck (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  The rename itself? The admin has reverted the rename for the discussion period, as I understood. If the discussion will result in deciding that "Bayern Munich" is a better name then the revert should be reverted back. Well very well (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: : tell me please if it is possible to continue the discussion that User:Jeff G. closed. Or should it be reopened? --Mitte27 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The closing is nonsense. This is an ongoing discussion which should continue on this page. GPSLeo (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with continuing here. But until there is consensus for a move from the original name, also all the subcategories and all the files should be moved back. @Mitte27: that would be your responsibility. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schlurcher: I have speedy tags based on COM:CSD#G6 in place to facilitate that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: OK, sorry.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Keep Categories use English even if not English language topics even though it might be better to use the native language Commons currently doesn't for categories unlike galleries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is an exception to the oft cited "all categories should be in English" doctrine. The actual policy (COM:LP) says (bold is mine), "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." FC Bayern München does not have a single established English translation, with multiple translations in common use. But the problem is that we give leeway to non-English languages that use the Latin script and forcibly rename categories to English for languages that don't use the Latin script, which is a longstanding covert discrimination in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Info Meanwhile this category and all its subcategories were moved back to the initial title as a revert of the requester's undiscussed title changes. The comments at the beginning of the discussion of course refer to the title "FC Bayern Munich", not to the current title "FC Bayern München". Please keep that in mind while participating in this discussion or deciding this request. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Strong oppose
"München" is part of the club's official name (as you can see in the club website's imprint). It is not just a geopraphical indicator.
Because some say we should do it like the English Wikipedia: First of all, we are Commons, not the English Wikipedia. Second, it is a German club, therefore the English Wikipedia is not really relevant here to determine the correct proper name. And anyway, also the English Wikipedia says in the very fist sentence that the correct name is the German one.
Let's take a look into the other German sports clubs' names (most of these clubs and the corresponding towns/cities have the same name in English and German, therefore, we don't have a lot of examples): Category:TSV 1860 München (TSV 1860 Munich in en-WP), Category:FC Wacker München (FC Wacker München in en-WP), Category:1. FC Nürnberg (1. FC Nürnberg in en-WP, but the city is named Nuremberg in en-WP), Category:1. FC Köln (1. FC Köln in en-WP, but the city is named Cologne in en-WP) - all other clubs from Cologne (of course despite of those few that also in German have English names) also have the German name in our category system (Category:Sports clubs in Cologne) -, Category:Hannover 96 (Hannover 96 in en-WP; this city normally has a specific English translation, too: Hanover) - I also point to Category:Sports clubs in Hannover. There may be some more examples
→ As can be seen, the naming of German clubs in the English language and in the English Wikipedia is very inconsistent (which makes the English Wikipedia not a good source). Almost all clubs have their German name in English, even if the cities from which they are normally are used in a specific translation in English (see the Cologne and Hanover examples). On Commons again, we consequently use the German name, even if en-WP uses the English name. So, why should there be an exemption for FC Bayern München now?
Besides of that, the German-English mixture "Bayern Munich" is very strange. Why should this be more understandable to non-German natives? If you really care about international understandability, than at least consequently: "Bavaria Munich". And then we also have to be consequent and rename all clubs: 1. FC Cologne, Hanover 96 and so on. But this way we would create a lot of fantasy names that are not used anywhere in the world. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, this case is a precedent for other german and worldwide footballclubs. We are not discussing the naming of the club in the English Wikipedia, right. But isn't Commons also an english project? So I can understand, why some colleagues want to change the categorys name. On the other hand, FC Bayern München, is the official name of the footballclub. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons is not an English project: “Wikimedia Commons is part of the non-profit, multilingual, free-content Wikimedia family.” --тнояsтеn ⇔ 20:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In COM:LP is written: Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. Lukas Beck (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons is an international project, not an English project.

And yes, names should generally be in English. But generally doesn't mean: "always without any exemption". And you already did cite possible exemptions, most importantly: "some of proper names".

Because you highlighted it I guess that you will bring forward this next: The last part "which don't have an exact English equivalent" btw. specifies "terms", not the whole sentence. The latter interpretation wouldn't make any sense because biological taxa never have an exact English equivalent; biological taxa always are named in Latin and/or Greek. And in practice we handle it exactly this way: Otherwise we would have to move e. g. Category:Panthera pardus to Category:Leopard. -- Chaddy (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting Deja Vu from the WLKBot fiasco . When things don't have an exact English translation, keep them in the original language. @Chaddy, Commons has 11 admins who are also Dewiki admins, and is the only wiki that has a commons CU and a commons OS who hold the mop on that wiki. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 02:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Most things in other languages don't have an "exact" English translation. This is especially strong in cases where some things in English-speaking world are significantly different from the things in non-English-speaking world ("countries -- cities -- regions -- suburbs -- etc" hierarchy, for example). We should not then leave them untranslated — we just should come up with the best-matching translation. Well very well (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the best-matching translation if that particular translation is pretty common among English-speaking nations. But for non-English terms with multiple conflicting translations that claim themselves as "best-matching", we should better stick with the original untranslated term. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 Is there another translation then Bayern Munich? Lukas Beck (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not here to deal with specific instances, but as per the English sources cited, the club is known as either "FC Bayern Munich" or "Bayern Munich" in anglophone circles. I think the use of "FC" is considered redundant or not redundant. But the sources use what is called the partial translation of the name, the full translation would be "Football Club Bavaria Munich". But the translation is the product of an WP:OR. Since using partial translations would be problematic in a multilingual project like Commons, and given the club officially use the untranslated version, I support the untranslated one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any source given in the english articel about FC Bayern München, which prove, that Bayern Munich is a common name? Lukas Beck (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition; I just looked at the club's English homepage. The name “Bayern Munich” can actually be found there. --Lukas Beck (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck Yes that was a bad decision trigged by advise from the community, that I took - not that that is a valid excuse for my blunder. We're slowly recovering from it, but it is a stark reminder about the dangers of mass edits, and @WLKBot will no longer do mass edits. BTW you did a great job reverting the changes to pages, thank you. @Kim Bach operator of WLKBot (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So, does that mean that not only German clubs, but also Italian, Russian, Arabic, Ukrainian, etc, clubs should be named in their original form? If not, why is this suggested only for German? I understand the difference between English and all other languages — obviously, almost everything on Commons is in English, this is written in the rules ― but what is the difference between "English and German" and all other languages? Why German has an advantage here over all other non-English-non-German languages? Well very well (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is due to the tendency to give leeway to non-English languages that use the Latin script and forcibly rename categories to English for languages that don't use the Latin script, which is of course a longstanding covert discrimination in Commons. I believe all non-English languages should be treated equally, regardless of the writing system. That said, just because some other clubs of non-English countries don't use respective native languages in category names does not mean that the exception of the oft cited "all categories should be in English" doctrine is moot. I remember using Bengali to categorize the images of a zamindar palace in Bangladesh, since there is no consistent romanization of that Bengali name. I have even named a Bengali book in the original language (Category:অলৌকিক নয়, লৌকিক), despite having a standard romanization mentioned in the volumes of the book ("Aloukik Noy, Loukik"). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No one asks for a privilige for the German language. Why do you think that?

I did some more research now: In fact there is no advantage for the German language: Category:FK Crvena zvezda (en:Red Star Belgrade), Category:AC Sparta Praha (en:AC Sparta Prague), Category:SK Slavia Praha (en:SK Slavia Prague), Category:FC København (en:F.C. Copenhagen), Category:Legia Warszawa (en:Legia Warsaw), Category:Gwardia Warszawa (en:Gwardia Warsaw). There also are a lot of cases in which in the English language the domestic name is used although the city has a specific English name: Category:FC Dinamo București (in English, this city would be en:Bucharest), Category:S.S.C. Napoli (in English, this city would be en:Naples), Category:AS Roma (in English, this city would be en:Rome), Category:Torino FC (in English, this city would be en:Turin), Category:OKK Beograd (in English, this city would be en:Belgrade). → Also non-German clubs' categories have their domestic language's title on Commons, not their English one. There is no "lex Germany" or so. It is our common practice here on Commons to use the domestic name (the correct proper name!), not an English name. (Again there are not so many examples because in most cases in the English language there are used the original proper names, anyway.)

Don't get confused with the Cyrillic examples above. That's a completely different thing: In that case it is about the English transliteration/transcription from the Cyrillic alphabet into the Latin alphabet. I don't know why we use the English transcription instead of the transliteration in these cases.

Again: My new findings show that in fact we (almost) EVERYTIME use the original name, not the English name. That is a very strong additional argument against this request here. Mitte27, please close this now. -- Chaddy (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at another argument — the argument @MBH gave above. Many users don't have Extended Latin keyboard, so if Latin has an advantage — it should be the "default Latin", i.e. not including "FC København", "FC Dinamo București", or "FC Bayern München". What is the difference for an average user between entering ø, ü, Д, or ζ? Well very well (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In the search bar, simply enter "Category:FC Bay" and you´ll be fine. This is the wrong place to discuss about kyrillic script discrimination in general. And even the most english-centric users will manage the intellectual transfer between "FC Bayern Munich" and "FC Bayern München". (I don´t care which one it is, just stop moving it back and forth.) Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess if I enter "FC K" I would get much more results than just "FC København". This isn't a wrong place because we discuss general examples. Well very well (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Так и в чём проблема? У меня нет возражений с наименованием данных категорий, поскольку они имеют такое же наименование как в Английской Википедии (Category:FC Dinamo București = en:FC Dinamo București, Category:OKK Beograd = en:OKK Beograd, Category:Torino FC = en:Torino FC). Другие категории нужно переименовать. Проблема в том, что мы зря тратим время на обсуждение названия футбольной команды, когда Викисклад предназначен для работы с медиа-файлами, а не для решения вопросов о правильном именовании спортивных клубов. Лучшая идея заниматься тут вопросами фото, а название сделать идентичным Английской Википедии, являющейся самой популярной энциклопедии в мире на английском языке. При создании категорий футбольных клубов я не хочу каждый раз обращать внимание на то, как это явление называется на различных языках. Даже если идти по пути сравнению популярности различных вариантов, то FC Bayern Munich используется в "Британике" и других медиа. На официальном сайте "Баварии" на английском языке используется имя FC Bayern Munich (1, 2, 3). На фоне предыдущих аргументов, я думаю, нам не стоит обращать внимание на то, сколько время категория называлась иначе или на название статьи в немецкой или любом другом языке.

Google translate: So what's the problem? I have no objections with the naming of these categories, since they have the same name as in the English Wikipedia (Category:FC Dinamo București = en:FC Dinamo București, Category:OKK Beograd = en:OKK Beograd, Category:Torino FC = en:Torino FC). The other categories need to be renamed. The problem is that we are wasting time discussing the name of a football team when Wikimedia Commons is designed to work with media files, not to solve problems with the correct naming of sports clubs. The best idea is to deal with the photo issues here, and make the name identical to the English Wikipedia, which is the most popular encyclopedia in the world in English. When creating categories of football clubs, I do not want to pay attention to what this phenomenon is called in different languages. Even if we compare the popularity of the different options, FC Bayern Munich is used in Britannica and other media. On the official website of Bayern in English, the name FC Bayern Munich is used (1, 2, 3). In light of the previous arguments, I think we should not pay attention to how long the category was called differently or to the title of the article in German or any other language. Mitte27 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added two more examples. -- Chaddy (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose the rename — As pointed out by various users, there is an exception to the oft cited "all categories should be in English" doctrine. The actual policy (COM:LP) says (bold is mine), "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." FC Bayern München does not have a single established English translation, with multiple translations in common use. But English names can be used for cases if there's one undisputed English translation is used among English-speaking nations. That said, we still have a tendency to give leeway to non-English languages that use the Latin script and forcibly rename categories to English for languages that don't use the Latin script, which is a longstanding covert discrimination in Commons. If there's an established name in the native language (regardless of script) and no established name in English (the primary language of Commons), we should use the native name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  But I don't think that in at least the current case there is "no established name in English"? According to Mitte27's comment above, listing multiple English sources, all of them use "Bayern Munich" spelling. Well very well (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just to add that the links from Mitte27 give 2x FC Bayern Munich and 11x Bayern Munich. So the proposed move to FC Bayern Munich would actually not be the established name in English. The links more highlight that there is no universially established name in English. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  But this discussion is not about "FC" prefix (I guess for all clubs, even English, it is often omitted). Well very well (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, above I already have shown that the part "which don't have an exact English equivalent" only specifies "terms", not the whole sentence. -- Chaddy (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mitte27: Again I highly advice you to end this discussion. I already have shown that our common practice here on Commons is to use the original proper name for sports clubs when these are written in the Latin alphabet: . We do this ALWAYS, even if there is a very often used English version. You provided no argument why FC Bayern München should be the only exemption from that common practice. If you want to change the common practice, this can not be discussed in one individual case. For that a general discussion would be needed. Furthermore, I also have shown that our rules themselves do intent to use "some of proper names": . Therefore, we possibly even need to discuss this even one level higher on the basis of a rule change discussion.
On German Wikipedia we have a rule for deletions requests that allows everyone (even non-sysops) to end such discussions if the reason for deletion does clearly not apply: de:WP:LAE. I don't know if something similar exists here on Commons for category discussions. But if so, at this point this discussion here would clearly be a case for this rule. -- Chaddy (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Я не буду прекращать обсуждение исходя из того, что вы не согласны с переименованием. Также вы вводите коллег в заблуждение, говоря о наличии на Викискладе практики именования категорий футбольных клубов исходя из названия на оригинальном языке, а не на английском. Вот вам несколько примеров:

Google translation: I will not close the discussion based on the fact that you do not agree with the renaming. You are also misleading colleagues by saying that Wikimedia Commons has a practice of naming football club categories based on the original language name, not the English name. Here are some examples:

1) Category:Polonia Warsaw = en:Polonia_Warsaw / pl:Polonia_Warszawa_(piłka_nożna)

2) Category:Khazar Lankaran FK = en:Khazar Lankaran FK / az:Xəzər_Lənkəran_FK

3) Category:Sabail FK = en:Sabail_FK / az:Səbail_FK

4) Category:FC Baku = en:FC_Baku / az:Bakı_FK

5) Category:FC Gueugnon = en:FC_Gueugnon / fr:Football_Club_gueugnonnais

6) Category:FC Barcelona = en:FC_Barcelona / es:Fútbol_Club_Barcelona

7) Category:NK Krka = en:NK_Krka / sl:Nogometni_klub_Krka_Novo_mesto

8) Category:FC Flora = en:FC_Flora / et:Tallinna_FC_Flora

9) Category:F91 Dudelange = en:F91_Dudelange / lb:F91_Diddeleng

10) Category:FC Differdange 03 = en:FC_Differdange_03 / lb:FC_Déifferdeng_03

11) Category:Union Douala = en:Union Douala / fr:Union sportive de Douala Mitte27 (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Your examples are not useful, you are now comparing the English version with the other language version, which is perfectly fine for each language version. However, this does not apply to Commons as an international project. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 06:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Categories: Category names should generally be in English . English Wikipedia or Britannica give us an idea of ​​what the object is called in English. That's enough. Mitte27 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read that again: "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." FC Bayern München is a proper name. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 08:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You have found four, maybe five cases that differ from the common practice. Congratulations.

1. As for all the other clubs from that city the subcategories are correctly using "Warszawa". Only the main category is wrong. And here is the explanation: Eksperto has moved it to this name in 2019 without any discussion ). Of course this has to be made undone.

2., 3, 4. Category:Association football clubs in Azerbaijan is a mess. For some clubs we use these specific special letters from the Azerbaijani Latin alphabet, for some we don't.

5. This is one of these cases of French clubs whose names are used grammatically wrong in English and also in German. "gueugnonnais" is an adjective, but in English and in German they make a substantive out of it. Doesn't make so much sense. So, it's not really a translation thing but more a grammar thing. Similar cases are for example Stade Rennes and Olympique Lyon. We always use the correct form (e. g. Stade rennais: Category:Stade rennais FC, Olympique Lyonnais: Category:Olympique Lyonnais). Of course you may always find some few cases in which someone made a mistake when creating the category or didn't know about the common practice.

Your other examples melt into thin air when you take a closer look:

6. Really?

7. This is a shorter form, not a translation. It has nothing to do with your arguments.

8. Same as above

9. The clubs language is French, not Luxembourgish. Take also a look into the infobox of the linked article in lb-WP: There stands: "Offiziellen Numm: F91 Dudelange" (that means "official name). Btw, Luxembourg has a very complicated language situation as it has three official languages (German, French and Luxembourgish). In colloquial conversations the people there mostly use Luxembourgish, in more formal situations German or French, the media mostly uses German and the authorities use all three languages (in written form mostly French, in spoken form also the other two languages), whereas the laws are almost only written in French. And most importantly for our discussion: The football association uses French.

10. Similar as above, but this club seems to be bilingual.

11. This again is a short form. -- Chaddy (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Right @Chaddy, and to @Mitte27, do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point COM:POINT. It's not much more than that. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 08:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Таких случаев гораздо больше (см Category:PFC Lokomotiv Tashkent, Category:TP Mazembe и тд). Как создатель категорий я не должен каждый раз изучать языковую ситуацию в Люксембурге, Германии или России при редактировании категорий. Единственный правильный способ использовать английское наименование. Редактор из испанской Википедии с такой же уверенностью как вы скажет, что для наименования категории про ФК Барселоны нужно использовать полный вариант. Мне удобней вариант наименование категорий на кириллице, поэтому в случае выбора не английского языка в названии, я буду в дальнейшем создавать категории на кириллице (например Category:Санкт-Петербург, Category:ПФК ЦСКА Москва, Category:Архитектура Псковской области). Изучение всех нюансов наименования объектов на различных языках на Викискладе лишь отнимает наше время. Это в целом не главная задача данного проекта. Когда появится возможность называть категории для каждого языка в отдельности текущий вопрос будет не актуален. На данный момент все названия должны быть унифицированы на английском языке, чтобы в том числе, было удобней работать с Викиданными и другими проектами. Нет смысла тут решать как правильно называть объекты по типу Finland - Suomi, Grozny - Sölƶa-Ġala, Simferopol - Aqmescit для удовлетворения желания участников с различными политическими позициями или лингвистическими предпочтениями. Тоже самое относится к немецким клубам или городам. Название города Мюнхен на немецком точно также отличается от английского, как и название этого города в названии футбольного клуба. Выше я приводил примера использования написания Munich в Британике, различных сайтах, включая официальный сайт "Баварии".

Google translation: There are many more such cases (see Category:PFC Lokomotiv Tashkent, Category:TP Mazembe, etc.). As a category creator, I don't have to study the language situation in Luxembourg, Germany, or Russia every time I edit categories. The only correct way is to use the English name. An editor from the Spanish Wikipedia would say with the same confidence as you that the full version should be used to name the category about FC Barcelona. I prefer to name categories in Cyrillic, so if I choose a non-English language for the name, I will create categories in Cyrillic in the future (for example, Category:Санкт-Петербург, Category:ПФК ЦСКА Москва, Category:Архитектура Псковской области). Studying all the nuances of naming objects in different languages ​​on Wikimedia Commons will only take up time. This is not the main goal of this project. When it becomes possible to name categories for each language separately, this issue will no longer be relevant. At the moment, all names should be unified in English, including to make it easier to work with Wikidata, etc. There is no point in dealing with the issue of renaming Finland - Suomi, Grozny - Sölƶa-Ġala, Simferopol - Aqmescit on Wikimedia Commons to satisfy the wishes of participants with different political positions or linguistic preferences. The same applies to German clubs or cities. The name of the city of Munich in German is just as different from English as the name of this city in the name of the football club. Above, I gave examples of the use of the spelling Munich in Britannica, various sites, including the official site of Bayern. Mitte27 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mitte27: There is a category redirect in place at Category:FC Bayern Munich for exactly the use case you described. Everyone, including yourself, can use these redirected category to sort files in. Then, there is a bot (User:RussBot) that will move them every night to the right place. And for the same reasons there is also a category redirect in place for Category:Санкт-Петербург already. Should there be a category redirect from Category:ПФК ЦСКА Москва to Category:CSKA Moscow? If you think that it is easier for everyone in Commons to sort files in there, then probably yes and so I just made that one as well. I think nobody is arguing for the deletion of the category redirect of Category:FC Bayern Munich, the discussion is about keeping the main category at Category:FC Bayern München. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Schlurcher, yes, that's right, the redirect makes sense and such redirects could also be created for all the other examples that were mentioned here. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 13:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 -- Chaddy (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As I undestood, Mitte27 suggests that if "FC Bayern München" is a main category and "FC Bayern Munich" is a redirect, then also "ПФК ЦСКА Москва" should be a main category and "CSKA Moscow" a redirect. Well very well (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Mitte27 confuses confuses the topic of Latin script (for which the rules do not provide any exceptions) with the topic of proper names (which can be used according to the rules). So "ZSKA Moskva" instead of "CSKA Moscow" would be ok, "ЦСКА Москва" not. If you want to discuss that, do it at the respective category talk page or at Commons talk:Categories. Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

By that logic "Bayern München" should be named "Bayern Munchen". Well very well (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Letters like Ü, Ê, Ú, å, Ö, Ø are Latin script. They are just modifications of basic Latin alphabet and also in the Latin script section of Unicode and can all be typed on computers with English keyboard and system language. That is the difference to Cyrillic or Greek which is a totally different alphabet and they can not be typed with English keyboard and system language without special configuration. GPSLeo (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rudolph Buch, Well very well, and GPSLeo: To be honest, that seems like a systematic discrimination against languages using non-Latin alphabets to me. I mean, we can use French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc. in category names, but not Russian, Bengali, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., just because the latter languages use non-Latin alphabets. Many English physical keyboards can't type diacritics like this, and we have to use Character Map in Windows PC (or virtual keyboards in different languages for smartphones) to type these characters. The same is true for characters outside the Latin script, so there's no need to discriminate against languages not using Latin alphabets. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There are people wanting every proper name translated into English and there are people wanting every proper name using the original name for naming the category. There is no perfect solution as long as we stick to categories. As there is no clear consensus for one of the solutions finding a compromise is necessary and I think using the original name when using Latin script and using transliterations for non Latin scrips is a good one. Because with this solution people who speak the language and people who do not speak the language and read the name. GPSLeo (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

can all be typed on computers with English keyboard and system language
How exactly? I have a computer with English keyboard and system language and have no idea how to type these letters without either googling them, using Character Map, or some weird Alt+numbers combinations that no user remembers. Well very well (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

See for example en:Ü#Keyboarding or en:Ø#Typing the character. GPSLeo (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So, it's either the weird combinations, or some "US International" keyboard layout I never heard of before. Well very well (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Info There was another discussion opened: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:Polonia Warszawa. It's about the same topic, Mitte27 wants to move the category to the English title "Polonia Warsaw". Both cases are part of the same conflict and therefore, they should be decided together. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just one clarification: the first renaming of this category was done by you, not me, immediately after I mentioned this club in the discussion. Mitte27 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mitte27: No, the first renaming of this category was done by Eksperto in this edit 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It was 5 years ago and has nothing to do with this situation. Mitte27 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mitte27: To the contrary, it set a bad precedent for your your renames.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If a category exists under such a name for five years, then it is already a consensus name. Mitte27 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Nope. It could also be that nobody has cared enough to change it. Everyone please check out Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany, which is a similarly misguided renaming attempt of German political parties. It is to my knowledge the only party where our category tree uses an English translation. The situation exists since two years already, and the change was (probably?) not reverted because the CfD has not yet been concluded, and also because that party has a smaller than 0.1% vote share so nobody actually cares that much. Bad names (category/file/template...) existing does not necessarily mean they were created by consensus; and even so, any bad consensus name can be overthrown by a better consensus name. --Enyavar (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Asistente para la creación de artículos

No useful educational content other than an audio clip about the process. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This category was created in 2014 to include an option to listen to Asistente para la creación de artículos for other people and make it easy to understand its steps. The problem was not defined which text would be dictated. In 10 years the mechanics of this Asistente (see "article wizard") has changed and maybe in a future it can be used for people with audiovisual disabilities. I hope this is not misunderstood.--DSan (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, what's being nominated for deletion here is the category itself, not the file in it. The file will remain in categories like Category:Spoken Wikipedia - Spanish and Category:Article wizard. Omphalographer (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:MTN50 0560

Unnecesary category: I propose it for deletion (there is only 1 file related to MTN50 560 sheet, I moved it out to the parent category). Generally, we haven't a category for each individual MTN50 sheet: I think there is no need for it MGeog2022 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have explained the deletion proposal to the user who had created the category, in his discussion page, in Spanish (in case he had difficulties understanding English).

On the other hand, I had forgotten to say that there was a second image that also belonged to this category, but it was only as an “attribute”: it was a composite map that included 2 sheets, and I consider that this does not justify the existence of the category either, since that image belonged to both categories that had been created for each of the 2 sheets (I've proposed both categories for deletion). MGeog2022 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The user who created the category agrees on its deletion (see here, in Spanish). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:MTN50 0535

Unnecesary category: I propose it for deletion (there is only 1 file related to MTN50 535 sheet, I moved it out to the parent category). Generally, we haven't a category for each individual MTN50 sheet: I think there is no need for it MGeog2022 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have explained the deletion proposal to the user who had created the category, in his discussion page, in Spanish (in case he had difficulties understanding English).

On the other hand, I had forgotten to say that there was a second image that also belonged to this category, but it was only as an “attribute”: it was a composite map that included 2 sheets, and I consider that this does not justify the existence of the category either, since that image belonged to both categories that had been created for each of the 2 sheets (I've proposed both categories for deletion). MGeog2022 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The user who created the category agrees on its deletion (see here, in Spanish). MGeog2022 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:God in monotheistic religions

The page Category:God redirects to this category, which leads to gods in polytheistic religions being accidentally categorized here. Either convert Category:God into a dab page or redirect to Category:Deities. Note that it is difficult to nominate Category:God to CFD automatically, so I have nominated the current target instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: It sounds like we should be discussing Category:God, then, not the one in the heading. Am I understanding that correctly? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but since "God" is a redirect, I think it can also discussed here. I agree with both suggested ideas by Sbb, with a slight preference for a disambig page over a redirect to Deities. --Enyavar (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 and Enyavar: I have boldly converted Category:God into a dab page. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: Cool. You'll also need to links to that page. see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:God. Fortunately, there aren't too many, and not all of them should be changed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Deno logos

Subcat of Category:Deno with only one file. All the other files in the parent cat are also logos. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would keep the logos category, then, so that it can be categorized under logos. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Church Slavonic alphabet letters

Unnecessary cat, redundant with Category:Early Cyrillic letters by letter and Category:Glagolitic letters by letter. Created as a POV fork by long-term banned hoaxer/sockpuppeter User:Kriestovo Nysian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Paintings by depicted country

The preposition "of" in "paintings of X" categories is intended to mean that these categories contain paintings depicting X. However, the ambiguity of the preposition "of" here means that these categories can be misused for paintings originated from X, even though we have "paintings from X" for such categories. This is a departure from the usual category convention, where we use "of" categories to cover both "from" and "in" categories. But here, the "of" categories cover neither! As per the spirit of the Universality Principle, I suggest renaming the "paintings of" categories to "paintings depicting", with separate "paintings of" categories covering "paintings depicting", "paintings from", and "paintings in" categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Compare the category name Category:Maps showing history, though country subcats use the format "maps of the history of X". We also have "photographs of X" categories that cover the potential subcats "photographs depicting X", "photographs from X", and "photographs in X". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to throw out another option: instead of "paintings depicting <country>", how about "<country> in paintings"? That would mean more renaming. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: The "X in paintings" is much better, and also in line with the "X in art" categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Deities and spirits

An intersectional category covering two distinct types of religious figures, with several other religious figures as subcats. The linked essay says that we should discourage such "intersectional categories", since in the end we have to navigate individual subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That is really a union, not an intersection. Intersections we do all the time: Male athletes, Sculptures in Spain, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: This is why I cite this essay whenever I use the term "intersectional category" to mean what is really a union category. Joshbaumgartner calls union categories as such, and he's the author of this essay and the template {{Intersection category}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe rename to sth like "Supernatural beings"? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Even so, do we really need a category that covers things as diverse as the Jewish deity, the tooth fairy, and a gremlin, and where we have to work out whether Jesus, the Buddha, saints of various religions, and the emperors of Rome belong or not? This seems to get into ontological issues that are not really a lot of help to anyone trying to find a file. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so either. The notion that one can draw a clear dividing line between the Real and the Supernatural - and that the latter is a single category which all things which aren't Real can be lumped into - simply doesn't hold up to the vast variety of real belief systems that are out there in the world. There's no need for a single overarching category here; it's perfectly effective to create categories scoped to specific types of things within specific belief systems, like Category:Indian deities or Category:Demons in Christianity or whatnot. Omphalographer (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sclavenians phenotype

Cplakidas tagged this category for speedy deletion with the rationale:

C1: utterly pseudo- and non-scientific category, using modern reenactors or museum puppets (!) to derive the phenotype (!) of the early medieval Slavic peoples (Sclaveni). 'Sclavic' as a term does not exist in scientific literature (it is an archaic form of 'Slavic')

That definitely isn't what COM:C1 is for, so I've converted this to a standard discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed with OP; this category together with Category:Globular Amphora phenotype should find deletion soon. This looks like a modern form of racial anthropometry, and these images don't look like they were intended to depict "pure blooded phenotypes" upon creation. One hopes. Images that are/were intended to show "Nordic race" etc may be placed in Category:Racial type portraits or even subcategories there. --Enyavar (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Radegast of Obotrites

Hoax category created by long-term sockpuppeter User:Kriestovo Nysian/User:Sibinia, apparently conflating the historical Gothic king en:Radagaisus (see Category:Radagaisus) and the ancient Slavic deity en:Radegast (god) (see Category:Radegast (deity); POV fork of either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Letitia Elizabeth Landon Redundant Files

What is the purpose of this category, and should it have additional admin tags? Thanks! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Novels by Letitia Elizabeth Landon, then delete. There's only one file in this category, and it's currently in use at Wikisource - so even if it's "redundant" it can't be deleted. Omphalographer (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The file Lady Anne Granard, or Keeping up Appearances Volume 2.pdf needs to be deleted. It arose because I have often been unable to overwrite files that contain errors and have therefore to generate a new file with a new name. That is why we now have Lady Anne Granard 1, 2 and 3 in Category:Novels by Letitia Elizabeth Landon, which are correct and needed. Lady Anne Granard, or Keeping up Appearances Volume 2.pdf is only still there because I do not know how to delete it. That is why I created Category:Letitia Elizabeth Landon Redundant Files, because it has to go somewhere. 2A02:C7C:AD0A:F000:9049:794B:C5E:A299 20:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Voivodes of Silesia

also: Category:Voivodes of Bohemia

Hoax category of banned User:Kriestovo Nysian. No such thing as a Voivode of Silesia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Voivodes of Romania

Recently created by long-term banned sockpuppeter User:Kriestovo Nysian. POV fork of Category:Princes of Wallachia Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Gertruda Kilos

Please merge with "Category:Gertruda Kilosówna" as they are both the same person. Thanks in advance. 78.152.226.46 21:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for information. I've rather chosen category name "Gertruda Kilos", because it is correct. Lowdown (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hiti x

This cat is no longer needed, has no further use Judithcomm (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories based on quantities of text

• Category:Text by quantity of letters (and 40 direct subcategories)
• Category:Text by quantity of numerals (and 2 direct subcategories)
• Category:Text by quantity of words (and 7 direct subcategories)

Commons has a huge number of categories used for tagging images which contain particular letter groupings, words, or phrases (e.g. Category:HDPE (text); Category:Cowboy (text); Category:Social justice (text)). These three metacategories, and their direct subcategories, are used to classify those categories based on their size. For example, Category:Social justice (text) is categorized under Category:Text with 14 letters and Category:Text with 2 words.

None of these categories have any practical purpose. They aggregate wildly unrelated content based on non-essential properties (i.e. the number of constituent letters/words). Users searching for images containing a particular word or phrase can do so by navigating to the (text) category directly, or through the canonical metacategory Category:Images by text; there is no reasonable situation where the number of letters or words is relevant to finding an appropriate category. They should be deleted.

(To be clear, the text categories themselves are fine for now. There are probably more of them then are necessary or useful, but they're not part of this discussion. All I'm nominating for deletion here are the three categories listed above and their direct subcategories involving specific numbers, not all of the text categories they're metacategories for.)

Omphalographer (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Omphalographer. - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support Not relevant at all. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The entire group seems to be part of the "(text)" hierarchy built a while by @Mike Peel, Ooligan, and Joshbaumgartner: .

The structure does do grouping by words, so there may be some use for Category:Text by quantity of words, but I'm not sure if Template:2 word text cat is that helpful, especially when used wrong as on Category:Social justice (text).

I think it's a good thing to break them down by number of characters. I used Category:Text by quantity of letters for that and would  Keep it, but a more general one would do.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not something I was involved in building, I was just pushing for it to be renamed for clarity, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Images by text. I'm neutral on whether it's worth having these categories or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what purpose you see these categories serving? Simply existing isn't a purpose in and of itself - what can the resulting category system be used for? How does it help users find content? Omphalographer (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Keep These are just part of the quantity categorization, and cause no harm, they are automatically populated. No reason to delete. Josh (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: What's the "quantity categorization" here though? I see various useful quantity categories like Category:3 automobiles, but I don't think the ones listed here are really useful, as pointed out by Omphalographer and Enhancing999. So,  delete all of the categories listed here and disable the automatic categorization to them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete - Delete all. These categories have no practical value and are a waste of maintenance effort. Nosferattus (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chinese New Year in Greater Manchester

Overcategorisation. This and the subcats are empty apart from the 'City of Manchester' subcats, and I think we can delete them in favour of the 'City of Manchester' categories - or better, just have 'Manchester' categories. What do others think? Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support. Reparent Category:Chinese New Year in the City of Manchester to Category:Chinese New Year in England, then delete the unnecessarily vague "Greater Manchester" categories. Omphalographer (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Somerville (NJT station)

Way, way, way, too many similar, duplicate, or poor quality images in this category. It appears that someone literally just dumped Adam Moss' entire Flickr album into Wikimedia Commons, including his older photos that are not nearly as good quality as his more recent ones, and including mutliple duplicate or near-duplicate photos. Some serious trimming/curating is needed. The Boston Railfan (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Boston Railfan: If you have problems with the images in a category, take that up somewhere that we discuss images (e.g. if you want to nominate several for deletion on a similar grounds, see Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request. This is a place to discuss whether to keep or merge a category, whether it is hooked into the wrong place in the category tree, etc., not usually to discuss its contents except insofar as those suggest that the category as it stands is not being correctly understood. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If anything, all the duplicates should be merged and given better names. ----DanTD (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Videos of mammary intercourse

لاپستانی 2A01:5EC0:B002:BB8D:648E:7A08:2486:885C 10:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Olympic (ship, 1910, Belfast)

As Commons uses the year of completion for ships (per the guidelines in Category:Ships) and not launch (the way that some Wikipedias do), and as the ship was completed in May 1911, this category should be renamed Olympic (ship, 1911) (the "Belfast" disambiguation possibly may not be needed, as it appears there were no other ships named Olympic completed in the same year, but verification to confirm it may be needed for be sure). See this discussion about the same issue for the Titanic (Olympic’s famous sister ship). This should also apply to the category’s children Olympic (ship, 1910, Belfast) in dazzle camouflage, Interior of Olympic (ship, 1910, Belfast) and Olympic (ship, 1910, Belfast) in Brest harbour. 81.41.185.128 11:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jan Nyski

Hoax category, made up by banned User:Kriestovo Nysian Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What exactly makes it a hoax category? There appear to be Wikipedia articles in several languages on that person and most of them list references (even different ones, depending on language). The Czech Wikipedia has a particularly long list of references (if compared to the other languages). However, I didn't check the contents of the sources because they are all books I don't necessarily have access to, so I can't tell whether they actually contain the information found in the article, but at least there are references. Are the articles also a hoax? Or is it just the Commons category that's problematic? Nakonana (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is a (possibly legendary) figure of "John" ("Johannes", or maybe Slavicized as "Jan") who was said to be the first bishop of Wroclaw according to one medieval source; that much is a legitimate topic, and that's what the Wikipedia articles are about. Everything else that we were saying about him here on Commons is a hoax, freely made up by that banned vandal: (a) that he was known as "Jan Nyski" (i.e. John of Nysa); (b) that he was from that city; (c) that he was an "ecclesiastical duke" of that place (which is nonsensical – there was no such dukedom in the alleged "Jan"'s time, and the bishops of Wroclaw became connected with such a principality only some three hundred years later); (d) that he was part of the Piast dynasty; (e) that a certain sculpture on a city gate of Nysa represents him (in reality it's a sculpture of the severed head of John the Baptist, complete with silver plate. – Note that this image was also fraudulently inserted in the Czech Wikipedia article, of course by socks of the same vandal.) In short, we could of course rename the category to something legitimate (such as Category:John (bishop of Wroclaw)), remove the fraudulent categorizations and the misattributed images from it – but then we'd be left with nothing, because that category would in all likelihood remain empty forever. There is no image material to be found for the historical bishop, and the only contents the category ever had were just those images of the city gate (or some other stuff that was equally made up; I seem to remember the vandal once tried to pass off some ancient coin as his). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In theory, the category could contain a scan of the said one medieval source that mentions the bishop. The source would be likely PD. I the future, it could also contain PDF files of the books that are currently referenced in the Wikipedia articles. But it's probably going to take a while until those sources enter the public domain. For the time being, there's probably nothing speaking against the deletion of the category. Nakonana (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sumpango Sacatepéquez in Guatemala

Wrong name for the category, images moved to a new category Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Skokomish

There is a mess here, conflating two things: Skokomish Indian Tribe (Q15278068) and Skokomish (Q1186371). Clearly should be two separate categories. I propose naming them Category:Skokomish Indian Tribe and Category:Skokomish, Washington, respectively. Anyone have a problem with that? Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The current category is linked from Skokomish (Q1186371) and shows its Wikidata Infobox, but it also has explicit interwiki links to several Wikipedias' articles about the tribe. The resulting navigation links are a mix of the two.

Pinging @Himasaram, Themightyquill, Uyvsdi, Origamiemensch, Chris Light, the non-bots who have edited this category. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Support Its a DAB on Wikipedia and per w:WP:USPLACE the state should be in the title even if not ambiguous although I think that rule is dubious. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support splitting and making this a dab. I'm OK with the place name. For the other one, I would hesitate to use the term "Indian" because it's often considered offensive. Maybe "Skokomish Tribe"? English Wikipedia actually has both en:Skokomish Indian Tribe and en:Skokomish people that seem to describe the same group. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Crouch, Swale, and Auntof6: I think it's rather conflating Skokomish Indian Tribe (Q15278068) and Skokomish tribe (Q2034200) (en:Skokomish people not en:Skokomish Indian Tribe). Separate to Category:Skokomish people and Category:Skokomish, Washington. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

At the least we need 2 separate categories but I don't know enough about the topics to say if we need 3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we need three. The Skokomish Indian Tribe is a legal entity; some of its members are not ancestrally Skokomish, and do not identify as such. It's sort of like how an ethnic Hungarian who lives in Cluj-Napoca and has Romanian citizenship would not consider themself part of the Romanian people.

@@Auntof6: there are, indeed, people who find the work "Indian" offensive, but in Washington State, especially Western Washington, the people to whom it applies generally embrace it. Besides Skokomish Indian Tribe being one of several names used by the government of this particular reservation (and certainly the one by which they are best known) there are things like Seattle-based United Indians of All Tribes, Seattle Indian Health Board, Seattle Indian Center, etc.

And, yes, this should become a disambiguation, also including the river of this name, which has a category and which locals usually just call "The Skokomish". - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in the German Democratic Republic by year of destruction

Should be included into "Buildings in Germany by year of destruction" including its only subcategory for 1956 Carl Ha (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Finanzamt Kreuzberg

redundant with Category:Garde Dragoner Kaserne ; which is named after the original building purpose Carl Ha (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's the same building but nowadays known under the name "Finanzamt Kreuzberg" then I'd rather suggest that both categories (the old name and the new name) are kept and one of the categories is turned into a redirect because a lot of people might not be aware of the history of the building and thus will likely try to find the category under its current name. Or I'd suggest that the category with the historical name is turned into a subcategory of the one with the new name, because the historical images would differ from the contemporary ones due to the very different usage of the building, e.g. you won't find images of soldiers hanging out in front of a Finanzamt, but you might well find images of soldiers hanging out in front of a Kaserne. Separating such images from one another might be useful. Nakonana (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Slavic letters

Ill-defined and self-contradictory category. Not clear whether this is meant as a category for actual "letters", as the name implies (i.e. a super-cat for things like Category:Cyrillic A, Category:Cyrillic Be and so on), or a category for scripts (i.e. a super-cat for things like Category:Cyrillic alphabet and so on). Of the two random subcats that are currently included, one implies the former semantics and one the latter; the same is true for the supercats Category:Letters by alphabet and Category:Writing systems. Another inconsistency is whether "Slavic" is meant to refer to the entire modern language family of Slavic languages, or to its single ancient form, Church Slavonic (currently this is both in Category:Slavic languages and in Category:Church Slavonic language as super-categories).

But no matter what we might disambiguate this to, it would remain an instance of improper use of category intersection. "Slavic" is a language family. There is generally no 1-to-1 match between scripts and language families – no single script is used to write all Slavic languages, and no script is used exclusively for Slavic languages. There's no benefit in categorizing scripts (let alone letters) by what language families they are used in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Edmonds-Kingston Ferry

I don't know what to make of this category which, 5 years after its creation, contains one photo, a nighttime view that shows almost nothing except the ferry it was taken from. This is a real ferry route (from Edmonds ferry terminal in Edmonds, Washington to Kingston ferry terminal in Kingston, Washington), but I believe that there are no other categories for ferry routes in Washington State, not even far more heavily trafficked routes. Further, its only two parents are Category:Ferries in Seattle (although it doesn't go to, through, or particularly near Seattle) and Category:Puyallup (ship, 1998), one of several ships on this run, and which I believe has also been used on other routes. Do we really need this category? If someone believes we do, would they please give it appropriate parents and populate it? Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting this category after 5 years I can quite understand the concern. I have no recall of my thinking at the time which led me to categorise it thus. I suggest the image is either recategorised to Category:Ferries in Seattle or deleted as out of scope - little educative or exemplar value and deleting the Category:Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Richard Avery (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Avery: again, why "in Seattle"? This run does not get within 5 miles of any part of Seattle, and not within 15 miles of the ferry dock in Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

In fact, neither Edmonds nor Kingston is even in the same county as Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I can only apologise. On reflection I think deleting is the best option. I have nothing further to add. Richard Avery (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Orthodox churches not in communion with World Eastern Orthodoxy

Delete how can one be in communion with an organisation that does not exist? If there was a head of World Eastern Orthodoxy, it would be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. This just seems like a pejorative category to call out those not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Online translation: 1) This category contains Orthodox organizations that are not recognized not only by the Russian Orthodox Church, but also by the Church of Constantinople and others who are in communion with it, for example, the Turkish Orthodox Church. 2) The scope of the category is described in both Russian and English Wikipedia articles, as well as numerous authoritative sources. Ыфь77 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ыфь77: It would be helpful if you would supply links to the Wiki articles mentioned: I've failed to find any. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

ru:Взаимное признание православных религиозных объединений. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

UPD Online translation: I don't mind if the category is renamed to a more neutral name, but I'm still against deleting it - there should be a category for Orthodox churches that are not recognized by the 17 "official" Orthodox churches. --Ыфь77 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Who says that there are 17 "official" Orthodox churches? The schismatic churches might say that there are 50 churches. Who are we to make declarations of official / non official, schismatic / orthodox? Let reliable sources do the talking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Home insemination by cup method

Only one image Dronebogus (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

 Keep There's no rule against single image categories. I've certainly been reverted and attacked plenty of times myself when I nominated single image categories for deletion. That's the kicks. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Male cattle

A category used to distinguish between Category:Bulls and Category:Steers, which does not make sense as steers are often defined as castrated bulls, so Category:Steers should normally belong to Category:Bulls instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: According to this article, steers are not bulls, but castrated male cattle. If this is an accurate definition, Category:Steers should not be a subcategory of Category:Bulls.

Similarly, Category:Geldings is not a subcategory of Category:Stallions because geldings are not stallions, by definition. Jarble (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that can be. But we often don't like to categorize things in a binary way (castrated vs. non-castrated). Instead, we try to establish relations between one another. In this case, Category:Bulls are the original male cattle, who castrated become Category:Steers. Similarly, Category:Stallions are the original male horses, who castrated become Category:Geldings. So Category:Steers and Category:Geldings should come under Category:Bulls and Category:Stallions respectively, as the former are the derivatives of the latter. I have tagged Category:Male horses for the same reason. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep things the way they are. I see the point. However, by definition a steer is not a bull, and a gelding is not a stallion. Those are important distinctions among the people who raise them. They are all male, though, so the umbrella categories are appropriate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Seconding this. And I'd add that it's useful to have a category which doesn't imply whether an animal is or isn't castrated, since it's not always apparent from a photo. Making one a subcategory of the other leaves no way to say "I don't know". Omphalographer (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think it is a good idea to have the "male cattle/horses" categories. Also, as far as I know, many castrations happen before the animal reaches sexual maturity, so if e.g. a colt is gelded, it becomes a gelding without ever having been a stallion. --Bücherfresser (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bullocks

Ambiguous category, whose ambiguity is already mentioned within the category. Convert into a dab page with links to Category:Young bulls, Category:Steers, and Category:Oxen (draught cattle). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bubalus bubalis by country

Most subcategories are using "water buffaloes of X", with one using "bubalus bubalis in X" and another "bubalus bubalis of X". Consistent naming should be used per the Universality Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cattle-drawn carts

Redundant to Category:Ox-drawn carts. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment After a quick glance at it, I think it is safe to redirect from cattle-drawn to ox-drawn. However, en:Ox states (slightly edited here) that "Oxen are commonly (not sure why that word is there) castrated adult male cattle. Castration inhibits testosterone and aggression, which makes the males docile and safer to work with. Cows (adult females) or bulls (intact males) may also be used in some areas." meaning that "cattle" would in fact be the more encompassing term. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cattle-drawn vehicles

Redundant to Category:Ox-drawn vehicles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not all cattle are oxen, I'd say. Or are cows counted as oxen? Nakonana (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Are there pics depicting cow-drawn vehicles? I think male cattle are usually used for vehicles. If female cattle are also used for vehicles, I'd keep this category and create a separate Category:Cow-drawn vehicles. I think the distinction between male cattle and female cattle gets blurred once they are castrated to be used as draught animals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can't find any in the category, and Category:Ploughs by type also doesn't have a sub-category for cattle, only one for oxen. Nakonana (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why "cattle-drawn" categories are redundant to "ox-drawn" categories, as cows are almost never used as draught cattle, only oxen. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sabina (Slavic foremother)

Hoax category created by banned User:Kriestovo Nysian socks. There seems to be no basis at all for the notion that the mythological figures of "Lech , Czech and Rus" had a mother under this name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Courtyard by Marriott Cincinnati Downtown

Should be moved back to Category:Ingalls Building. While the Courtyard by Marriott is the current sole occupant of the building, the building has a very long history and is still known as the Ingalls Building. The plaques at the building's entrance still call it the Ingalls Building, as does every article you can find online about the building. It's not like they renamed it "the Courtyard by Marriott Building"; the Courtyard is just in the Ingalls Building. IagoQnsi (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Duchy of Opava

also nominating:

• Category:Coats of arms of Duchy of Opava (cf Category:Coats of arms of Duchy of Troppau)
• Category:Maps of Duchy of Opava (cf Category:Maps of Duchy of Troppau)
• Category:Maps of the Duchy of Opava (cf Category:Maps of Duchy of Troppau)

Recently created POV fork category of Category:Duchy of Troppau, created and populated by socks of banned User:Kriestovo Nysian, together with subcategories. Merge all categories back into the originals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Englischer Garten (München)

Hi, as stated in COM:NAME, category names should generally be in English. In May 2024 User:DALIBRI changed the category name into german; before and now, with the reason of unification. Of course, every subcategory should be named after the same principles, and after reading our guidlines I think, we should use the english one. Lukas Beck (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Lukas Beck (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Compromise: leave one as a redirect to the other. Nakonana (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You can leave a redirect to the german version, yes. But the english version should be visible in the first place. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, what is the intention? Changing the endonym into a translated version ("English landscape garden (Munich)") or into the popular mixed version ("Englischer Garten (Munich)"), bad people call this denglish)? --DALIBRI (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. The term Englischer Garten is used even in the english Wikipedia. I assume, that there is no english translation of that proper name. For München it does. Lukas Beck (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The article Englischer Garten english WP was created by an IP with 22 contributions in the english WP. The first revision: The Englischer Garten is a large park in Munich. The second and last revision from the IP: The English Garden (German Englischer Garten) is a large park in central Munich, Germany. It was founded in 1789 by Benjamin Thompson. There are also more than hundred edits on the german WP by the IP. Englischer Garten is a terminus technicus and on the german WP a redirect to Englischer Landschaftsgarten - in english English landscape garden, in french Jardin à l'anglaise. --DALIBRI (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Deutsches Rotes Kreuz

Same as here. Only that an IP adress (217.250.188.242) already starts with renaming the subcategories without discussion. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Underage sexuality

Redundant to Category:Child sexuality, as we have defined Category:Children to include everyone between ages 0 to 18, and that age group is considered "underage" in most countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This category is useful to separate the 3 subcategories in it. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Adolescent sexuality can belong to Category:Child sexuality, as teens are included under Category:Children categories (see {{Human stages of development}}). Category:LGBT youth is a problematic case, as "youth" does not always mean just children and teens, it can also include young adults (e.g. youth voters are legally adults in many countries). So this category should be renamed to Category:Youth sexuality to reflect the scope of youth categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Not redundant, is a container cat for “child” and “underage” subcats Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m also concerned that the only contents of Child sexuality are the subcategory Child sexual abuse, especially given that a parent category is Children's culture. I already mentioned this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude teenagers. Brianjd (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Childhood pedagogy

Redundant to Category:Early childhood education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Jingmai Mountain

based on category structure and wikidata, I suggest to rename this to Category:Cultural Landscape of Old Tea Forests of the Jingmai Mountain in Pu’er. Now, the current category should be created for https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48927785 but that is more work (compare with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48928978 ) Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Duchy of Muscow

Hoax category recently created by banned User:Kriestovo Nysian socks. The de:Standesherrschaft Muskau was never a duchy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Category:Grand Duchy of Moscow as an alternative name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Is "Muscow" a common misspelling or historical alternate spelling for the Russian capital "Moscow" in English? I'm not sure. I don't think it's a common English spelling for the German town of "Muskau" either, for that matter. I'm fine with redirecting the title to the Russian topic, but of course then the current image content needs to be re-categorized, maybe to Category:Standesherrschaft Muskau (there doesn't seem to be an established English term for "Standesherrschaft" that I could find). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support redirect. Enwiki suggests en:State country as the translation, but I don't know whether that is a correct technical term. In doubt, I also favour using the German term. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Female dogs

Move to Category:Bitches, the common term for female dogs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose. I'd actually prefer to not use gender-specific terms for animal categories in general. They can be confusing to users not fluent in English, especially when the term is infrequently used (like "tiercel" - a male eagle); they're often shared between species (e.g. "buck" and "doe" are used for rabbits, goats, kangaroos, and many other species) or ambiguous with other terms (e.g. "queens" means both female cats and royalty); and some gendered terms come with additional implications which are awkward for categorization (e.g. both "sow" and "gilt" are used for female pigs depending on whether they have borne offspring; similarly, "stallion" and "gelding" are used for male horses depending on whether they are sexually intact). Using "Male/female <animals>" uniformly would be much clearer. Omphalographer (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to not use gender-specific terms for animal categories in general.

@Omphalographer: I've replied to your oppose arguments below.

• They can be confusing to users not fluent in English, especially when the term is infrequently used (like "tiercel" - a male eagle); We can use Wikidata or manual description to clear things up. However, archaic or specialized terms should be eschewed (like "tiercel").
• they're often shared between species (e.g. "buck" and "doe" are used for rabbits, goats, kangaroos, and many other species) or ambiguous with other terms (e.g. "queens" means both female cats and royalty); Those terms are also eschewed for being ambiguous or shared between species.
• some gendered terms come with additional implications which are awkward for categorization (e.g. both "sow" and "gilt" are used for female pigs depending on whether they have borne offspring; similarly, "stallion" and "gelding" are used for male horses depending on whether they are sexually intact). These are problems that can be solved in separate discussions, especially as the categories Category:Male cattle and Category:Male horses are under discussion. I prefer "sow" for female pigs in general, with "gilt" as the subcat for female pigs with borne offspring. However, we use the scientific term for pigs (Category:Sus scrofa domesticus) anyway.
• Using "Male/female <animals>" uniformly would be much clearer. Technically true, but we rarely follow this naming convention, especially if we don't have specific terms for males and females. The same is true for people, where we use Category:Gay men for male homosexuals and Category:Lesbians for female ones. Since we have a specific term for female dogs (bitches) that is applicable for female dogs regardless of condition, we should accept that name.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to have a bunch of exceptions where specific terms for gendered animals aren't used, surely it'd be more consistent to avoid those terms altogether? Having to make a bunch of case-by-case decisions for "is this term common enough" or "is this term too ambiguous" feels like a violation of the universality principle.

(As a very minor aside: a "gilt" is a female pig which hasn't had offspring. And this distinction is an idiosyncrasy of European livestock jargon; there are almost certainly languages with no equivalent term, just like English has no equivalent for many Chinese kinship terms like 堂嫂.) Omphalographer (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding consistency, we also have categories like Category:Female humans and Category:Male humans instead of just having a category for "women" and one for "men". So, if "sow" and "gilt" are both words for female pigs then there's no way around having a parent Category:Female pigs anyway as there are apparently two "types" of female pigs (and maybe also two "types" of male pigs like for horses).
• I also agree that having to decide on a case-by-case basis wouldn't be a useful approach because it would introduce ambiguity and arbitrary to category naming conventions. And I don't see why we would make naming exceptions for "not so common terms" because we are already using the Latin term for pigs even though most people likely have never heard the Latin name and only know the animal under the term "pig". So, why use uncommon terms on the parent category but suddenly stop using uncommon terms for the subcategories?
• The distinction between "sow" and "gilt" is somewhat arbitrary in itself. This becomes obvious once you ask yourself: are different terms for female dogs that have had puppies and female dogs that did not have puppies? Are there different terms for female humans who have had children and female humans who did not have children? No? Then why are we using different terms for this concept for some species but not for other species? And based on what criteria do we make such a distinction for female pigs but not for female dogs or female humans? Sounds quite random to me. And there's a high chance that other languages don't make such distinctions due to it being arbitrary. That means that people will frequently miscategorize files because it doesn't even cross their mind that there may be sub-"types" for female pigs. And also, how would you be able to tell whether a female pig had offspring or not just by looking at a photo of a female pig in Category:Media needing categories? There's a high chance that there would be dozens of images in the category "sows" that would actually belong in the category "gilt". And if we had a category "bitches", then you'd likely find dozens of photos of female humans in there (for "reasons") instead of photos of female dogs, so that you'd have a hard time to actually find the photos of female dogs that you are looking for, and nobody would know what the category is actually about due to its variation in contents. Such a category would require frequent clean-up and vandalism surveillance. --Nakonana (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And I don't know whether Sbb1413 had checked Category:Bitches before starting this discussion, but the category existed in the past but got deleted for "vandalism" (unsurprisingly). See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=165922500. Nakonana (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose If we use "bitches", then we have to use the corresponding term for male dogs. That term is "dogs", which would be confusing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The use of "dogs" for male dogs is similar to the use of "men" for adult male humans (at least historically, when "men" referred to all humans in general). Same for horses vs. mares. As long as we have a single unambiguous term for a given concept, we can use one. We also have Category:Male actors vs. Category:Actresses, but there has been no discussions on renaming "actresses" to "female actors" so far, given the concerns on inconsistencies in other cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose as "bitch" is not a common term to refer to female dogs in general use. It may be used in specialized fields but I am not personally aware of any such usages. This rename would cause the category to generate a lot of confusion, as well as vandalism due to the word's much more common use today. Windfarmer1799 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:University of Southern California campus

This seems to me a bit of a mess, though I'm not sure how much of a mess. Judging by parent categories, the campus is considered identical to the historic district. Is that much correct? If not, then its a bigger mess even than I thought.

Either way, the inclusion of Category:University and college buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in California as a parent suggests that every building on the campus is on the National Register (surely this is not the case) and that the campus consists entirely of buildings (even though a fair number of subcats are not buildings; ditto for individual photos directly in the category). It seems to me that there should be a separate category for USC buildings. Yes, many things will be in both categories. Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Last Address in Mulda/Sa.

Kategorie ohne Bilder, Weiterbestand sinnvoll? Aagnverglaser (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The entire tree structure seemed odd: Category:Last Address by country, Category:Last Address by date. I guess I was confusing "last address" with "Last Address". We should be able to improve the naming of the category tree.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Buses by use

+ Category:Buses by function I'm have a some questions about naming these categories. Should we somehow unite them, make their name more integral? It seems to me that they are "same" and it would be better to give them a more general name.Or, based on the contents of the "by use" category, simply rename it to "Buses by function by country". Miikul (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion . I just created the category to aggregate the categories already existent with de designation "by use".--JotaCartas (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Young people

Although I mentioned the reasons to create this category at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:Young people, I later found that this category is redundant to Category:Youth for various reasons:

• The stage of development categories listed at {{Human stages of development}} is well-established throughout Commons. So, having a category like Category:Young people that overlaps with the well-established hierarchy can complicate the categorization.
• The Category:Youth category is more established one, covering various topics associated with people of young age (0 to 18 and even older). On the other hand, this one is not so established.
• The term "youth" not only refers to a stage of human life but also an age group, which makes it effectively a synonym of Category:Young people.

If we can get away with this category, we can directly categorize Category:Children, Category:Young adults, and Category:Young and old people under Category:Youth instead of this intermediary category. The newly-created cats Category:Young female humans and Category:Young male humans can be renamed to Category:Female youth and Category:Male youth respectively. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Notifying @Jmabel and Joshbaumgartner: regarding this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to see this done as Sbb1413 suggests, with or without a redirect to Category:Youth. - Jmabel ! talk 19:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Tío Joe, yo esperaría más de Vd al respecto, ya que "You know what it is to be young..." 191.126.171.133 14:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pink sky over Ukraine

I would like to discuss, whether we should use the term "sky over", which is used in this but also in this category or "sky in" instead, which is used in countries like Denmark or Germany. I think, that we should only use one term for all contries. Regards Lukas Beck (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Well-Informed Optimist, @Triplec85, @A.Savin and @XRay Lukas Beck (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• @L. Beck: Thank you very much for the discussion. I think the different names come from the individual linguistic origins of each country. Over seems to be used more for metaphorical, poetic, but also geographical descriptions. To describe a specific scene in a local context, in might be more appropriate. I was not aware of this difference when I created this category over a year ago. But knowing what I know now, I probably would have asked myself the same question as you. If the consensus is in favor of renaming, I agree with your suggestion to rename the existing categories to Pink Sky in. Best regards and happy holidays, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorted by country:

• Category:Sky by country --> 130+ countries with "Sky over COUNTRY"
  • Category:Sky by color --> 24 countries with...
    • Sky over Australia by colour (2 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Austria by colour (2 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Canada by colour (10 K) --> 8x over; 2 subcats for sunrises/sunsets by color
    • Sky over China by colour (1 K) --> 1x in
    • Sky over the Czech Republic by color (2 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Denmark by colour (4 K) --> 4x in
    • Sky over France by colour (7 K) --> 4x in, 2x over, 1 subcat for sunrises by color
    • Sky over Germany by colour (12 K) --> 12x in; 1 subcat for states of Germany; 1 subcat for sunsets by color
    • Sky over Indonesia by colour (3 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Italy by colour (1 K) --> 1x in
    • Sky over Japan by color (1 K) --> 1x over
    • Sky over Malaysia by colour (2 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Norway by colour (2 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Poland by colour (2 K) --> 2 subcats for Woiwodschafts; there 2x in
    • Sky over Russia by colour (1 K) --> 1x over
    • Sky over Slovakia by colour (6 K) --> 6x in
    • Sky over Slovenia by color (2 K) --> 2x in
    • Sky over Spain by colour (5 K) --> 5x in
    • Sky over Sweden by colour (3 K) --> 3x in
    • Sky over Taiwan by color (1 K) --> 1x over
    • Sky over Thailand by colour (1 K) --> 1x in
    • Sky over Ukraine by colour (2 K) --> 1x over; 1 subcat for sunrises by color
    • Sky over the United Kingdom by color (3 K) --> 3x in
    • Sky over the United States by color (2 K) --> 1x in, 1x over

Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 11:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorted by frequency:

• Category:Blue sky by country --> 133x in; 1x over
• Category:Gray sky by country --> 19x in
• Category:Orange sky by country --> 15x in; 1x over
• ...

Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 11:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Storye book and Joshbaumgartner: I'm interested in your opinion as a native speaker, which name seems better for the sky color over/in a country. Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 11:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not native speaker, but "sky over" sounds fine for me. Sky is not an object that is limited to a certain location, but "sky in" would suggest exactly this. --A.Savin 22:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that both "over" and "in" can be valid, and that "over" is OK for all sky by country categories. It is certainly true that some areas on the globe have sky views which are rarely or never seen in other areas: such as the aurora (seen near the poles), clear skies full of millions of stars (not seen in areas of light pollution) and areas where certain constellations are seen, such as the southern cross in Australia (not seen in northern latitudes). However, I believe that "over" serves all those instances as well. So if you must use one term, I'm voting for "over".Storye book (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting that we have the 'over' at Category:Milky Way Galaxy and a place on Earth. The 'in' seems to be an attempt to follow the general naming of categories, and I think that needs to be adjusted a bit. It can sound very odd sometimes, as in Category:Objects in Gotland; this sets my teeth on edge since we locals would never say that, it's 'Objects on Gotland' that sounds correct. The "in" is just Commons-speak. The 'in' is fine for Category:Photographs of flags of Sweden in Gotland County since the county is an administrative thing and not a location. A lot of categories could benefit from a name makeover to make them more accessible for people who search for them. --Cart (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Turtles by country

As per talk page note from 2012, this, and all its subcategories, should be renamed 'Testudines by country', and 'Testudines of Xxxxx'. Many of the files included are of tortoises, not turtles (e.g. there are no turtles, only tortoises, in Category:Turtles of Bulgaria). Given the number of subcategories that need renaming, this will need bot assistance. MPF (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, tortoises are turtles. See en:Tortoise#Terminology. That is not to say we shouldn't differentiate. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@MPF and Auntof6:  Rename to "Testudines by country" and "Testudines of X" respectively, as the term "turtle" is confusing at best for users of different English dialects. The Wiktionary entry wikt:turtle says:

• (zoology, US, Canada) Any land or marine reptile of the order Testudines, characterised by a protective shell enclosing its body.
• (zoology, Australia, British, specifically) A marine reptile of that order.

Which clearly indicates the disagreement among English dialects on whether the term "turtle" also includes land reptiles of the order Testudines. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: As noted by @Sbb1413: , in UK English and elsewhere, tortoises are not turtles, they are two different subgroups within Testudines. Hence the need to rename . . . - MPF (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Nuță Lucian

Nuță is quite obviously the last name, Lucian is the first name. Should be moved to Category:Photographs by Lucian Nuță. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Managed to finally move the category. IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Numismatic books

Just found this category by accident when creating Category:Books about numismatics, as per the usual scheme which is "Books about <subject>". I suggest moving all content to "Books about numismatics" Enyavar (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Exterior Anatomy Female Model - By Region

What kind of a sick mind can make this category and its weird subcategories? Does freedom mean imposing personal fantacies on Commons? 186.173.52.96 03:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Gasoline locomotives

According to this adversisement the category should be split into subcategories, please. One of them would be Category:Benzol locomotives. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC) NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Canonical structures of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by country

• Delete Category:Canonical structures of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by country

Rationale Unknown. I'm just moving this from speedy where no rationale was supplied by the nominator there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete Online translation: An unnecessary level of categorization. It is in this church that there are no structures by country. There are structures that are limited to one country, there are dioceses in one country, but there are no structures by country. --Ыфь77 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Online translation: And in general, to claim that the Church of Constantinople has structures by country is an original study. Ыфь77 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What about Category:Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA? Is the USA not a country? What about Category:Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada? Is Canada not a country? What about Category:Finnish Orthodox Church? Is Finland not a country? What about Category:Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church? Is Estonia not a country? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Online translation: 1) Don't you dare undo edits until a consensus is reached. 2) You are confusing the Church in the country and the Church of the country. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The wiki article for the USA Church / metropolis states: " The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (UOC of USA) is an Eastern Orthodox Christian religious organization of the Ukrainian diaspora under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the United States.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I was restoring the status quo ante bellum. The unilateral emptying of the category followed by the speedy was naughty. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo is the absence of this category level. Ыфь77 (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo ante bellum is the status that prevailed before @Ыфь77: unilaterally emptied the category out of process. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep the category was emptied by Ыфь77. It serves a useful purpose; "by country" categorisation is common in many churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am not against the Category:Constantinople Orthodox Church by country, such categories exist and should exist. But the category stated in the title is an original study, because the Constantinople Church does not have structures in every country. Ыфь77 (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC) P.S. original study = en:Wikipedia:No original research. --Ыфь77 (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is not necessary for a category tree structure "by country" to have an entry for every country in the world. 4 or 5 entries suffices. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I repeat once again: the original research is that the Church of Constantinople has structures for individual countries. The correct definition is that it has structures whose borders coincide with the borders of countries. Ыфь77 (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see no practical difference between the two things. Can you give a concreate example of a church building of Constantinople that is not within the borders of a country? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thw wiki article for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA states that it is: "...an Eastern Orthodox Christian religious organization of the Ukrainian diaspora under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the United States." So it is a canonical structure of Ecumenical Patriarchate. and the canonical territory is confined to the USA. How is this original research? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  One more time: You are confusing the Church of the country and the Church in the country. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA not a church of the USA? From the Wiki article, it looks like the canonical territory of the church is the USA. Does that not make it of the USA? Or is your point that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA is not a canonical structure of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  One more time: You're confusing of and in. If you don't see the difference, then you don't need to categorize. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Church of Constantinople does not have structures by country (give an example in the Church's Charter that they undertake to create structures in any country), there are structures whose borders coincide with state borders. Therefore, only the categories "Church of Constantinople in the country" are allowed, and the categories "Structure of the Church of Constantinople in the country" are unacceptable. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Ыфь77: So you're de-legitimising the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. It's not a church. It's not a canonical structure. Wikipedia is incorrect. Wonderful. And you have the nerve to accuse me of original research? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  You can't hear me. 1) Either apologize, or give a quote where I deprive the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA of the status of a church. In case of silence, I will be forced to contact the administrator in connection with your incitement of national and religious hatred. 2) I deny the existence of structures for states in the Church of Constantinople, that is: 1 structure = 1 state (±). Only if there is such a ratio can canonical structures be categorized by state. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  "1 structure = 1 state". Nonsense. The Roman Catholic Church has structures that operate in multiple states. Consider the Catholic Church in Ireland which is organised on an all-island basis and covers both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (in the United Kingdom). Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Roman Catholic Church has such structures (±!) as the Episcopal Conference. Something similar is completely absent in the Church of Constantinople, therefore, categorizing it in this way is an original study. Ыфь77 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Armagh straddles the border of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is also the case that the Archdiocese of Constantinople itself straddles the border of Turkey (Istanbul) and Greece (the Dodecanese islands). Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  You don't want to see the "±" sign. The Roman Catholic Church has canonical structures in most countries, so this category would be logical for it. In the Church of Constantinople, neither in the Statute not in practice does it contain the task of having structures in each country (despite the name Ecumenical). Therefore, for her, the name of the category under discussion is an original study.

  Result: I've given my arguments, you don't want to listen to them, and you'll continue discussing indefinitely. Ыфь77 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please: Photo report "Visit of Patriarch Bartholomew I of Finland in 20xx". Will this subcategory belong to the Category:Finnish Orthodox Church? No. And to the Category:Orthodox Church of Constantinople in Finland (approximate name)? Yes. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Church streets in Germany

The category was renamed from Kirchen streets in Germany to Church streets in Germany by Antoine.01 in March 2020. The subcategories of the federal States are using the term "Kirchen streets". I think, we should only use one term for the whole category tree. Ping also User:Jaceksoci68 and User:Triplec85. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion Church streets in Germany is good to make it comparable with other countries.

But at lower levels i see advantages vor "Kirchen streets", because in Germany the streets are named "Kirch(en)straße" or "Kirch(en)-Strasse" (like in the picture on the right side) and not "Church-Strasse"

In Poland we have "Kościelna" streets (see the second picture on the right side) and not "Church".

etc. ... in other countries ...

The signs show the names in different languages. So the question is, if we should make something English what isn't obviously.

--> In the end, I could live with both variants:

• Church streets at country level.
• Below the respective country spelling on the street name signs.

Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 13:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

However, the problem remains that we translated the category into English for Germany, but did not consistently implement it in all countries, such as in Poland or Slovakia. Lukas Beck (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support the proposal by @Triplec85: , as it is a partial implementation of the Universality Principle, which suggests using the same term for all categories in a given subject. Such a partial implementation is also found at Category:Organizations, whose country categories use "z" but subnational ones use "s" or "z" depending on the national variant. Due to its somewhat controversial nature, I think the full implementation of this principle should be done on the case-by-case basis. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Stone streets in Germany

Same problem es here. I think, we should only use one term for the whole category tree. Ping User:Triplec85. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographers at work

It's probably super pedantic but this seems like a pointless duplicate of Category:People photographing since at the end of the day everyone who takes a photograph is a "photographer at work" and visa versa. Unless the claim here is that the category should be people who are doing photography professionally, but then I'd ask how exactly that can be known from an image. There's nothing to indicate that the people in most of the images in this category are doing as paid work and I'd argue it's not a useful way to categorize these images anyway. So this category should just be merged with Category:People photographing. Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support merging. I generally use Category:People photographing for photographers present on the photographing site, no matter whether they are amateurs or professionals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Female hips with nudity

Whaaat! Hips with bare penises? What does "with nudity" mean? 186.172.235.243 16:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

So what? Categories like these are useful to categorize nude images separately in order to avoid them appearing in main categories. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 117#User:Sbb1413. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Overtourism

Is there a practical difference between Category:Mass tourism and Category:Overtourism? Both terms refer to the excessive number of tourists, with "mass tourism" in neutral contexts and "overtourism" in negative ones. Wikipedia has an article on overtourism, and a subsection on "mass tourism" in the main tourism article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mass tourism is when you have a large number of tourists sometimes in a place like a landmark or national park that may be able to handle them while overtourism is often when you have a place that can't handle all the tourists so while there is overlap they aren't the same thing. These terms may be subjective so it might not be a good idea to use these on topics like places but only on individual images. There was a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/02/Category:Overtouristed areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Mass tourism is when you have a large number of tourists sometimes in a place like a landmark or national park that may be able to handle them while overtourism is often when you have a place that can't handle all the tourists so while there is [an] overlap they aren't the same thing.

  Yes, but only the "handle" part makes the difference between the two, which is pointless as we usually use such cats for images showing crowds and/or litter at tourist places.

  These terms may be subjective so it might not be a good idea to use these on topics like places but only on individual images.

  You're right. These cats should not be used to categorize individual place categories but for individual images showing crowds and/or litter at tourist places. So, there's no need to make a difference between the two. IMO "mass tourism" is a broad term for crowds at tourist places, and if the crowds become unmanageable, the situation would be "overtourism". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Buildings by function

Any step of the hierarchy of categories should only be created as far as it is useful.
* On the level of countries and on the level of large subdivisions (such as states (in US terminology)) of large countries, there are thousands of items that have to be grouped. This causes even a lot of groups defined by function, on this level. That means that for large geographic units "Buildings by function"-categories as mother of categories by function are necessary.
* In small geographic units, with perhaps one or two hundred buildings, sortable for a dozen of functions, it is more useful to categorize the functions under "buildings", directly. As all categories on the level of small geographic units are subcategories for the same specification on the level of larger geographic units, these local categories for single functions are not hidden, if on local level there is no category "Buildings by function". Ulamm (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 missing SDC copyright license and others

All categories (and a number of templates, see, e.g., Template:cc-by-sa-3.0) use “Share Alike” for some reason. The official name of the license is “ShareAlike” (without the space). Especially because licenses are of a legal nature, all of these need to be moved. I’m making this request because many of the templates require special permissions to edit to remove the added space. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:ᚷᚮ͏ᛏ (text)

Pointless category.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Execution by shooting

Shooting people can be done without firing squads, and has been done historically! Enyavar (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples include Category:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém and File:Jeune Haiti coup de grace small.jpg (the latter after a firing squad had finished its work unsuccessfully). --Enyavar (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Attacks on health facilities during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Video data 2409:40D2:1028:6367:74C4:76FF:FEC2:1D97 02:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

WTF? I'm not sure what you're proposing be done here. Omphalographer (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:DJI Inspire Series (round-robin)

Attempted a round-robin move of Category:DJI Inspire and Category:DJI Inspire Series but accidentally hit the surpress redirect check twice. This category's history should either be merged with the Category:DJI Inspire Series redirect or deleted. ZLEA _T\^C 05:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Gender separation

 Rename to Category:Sex segregation per the Universality Principle. The Wikidata item, Wikipedia article, Wikivoyage article, and even the subcats of this category (excluding Category:Gender separation in the Jewish religion, which also uses "Jewish religion" instead of "Judaism") use "sex segregation", so why having a different term for the parent? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:NEET

This category is problematic, and is misused to categorize images related to Category:National Eligibility cum Entrance Tests (NEETs) by Indian users. In India, "National Eligibility cum Entrance Test" (NEET) refers to one of the two medical entrance examinations, one is for undergraduate aspirants (NEET UG) and the other is for postgraduate aspirants (NEET PG). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Not in education, employment, or training, I guess? This category could use a better parent as well; Category:Refusal of work doesn't even seem applicable. I've moved a couple of images out of this category which were clearly meant to go into the category for the exam. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably also needs a disambiguation page for "NEET". Nakonana (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mid-Sea Express

Should be merged into Category:Fil-Asian Airways as they were the same category, just rebranded at one point in time Astros4477 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fans (mechanical)

Parenthetical disambiguation is unnatural to many Commons users. So rename this to Category:Mechanical fans, consistent with Wikidata. and Wikipedia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article is at w:Fan (machine) but using natural disambiguation may be more appropriate for plural forms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Actresses

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Female superheroes.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:Female dogs.

Many users have expressed oppositions on renaming "female Xs" to unambiguous unique terms for various reasons, especially as the proposed category names would be inconsistent with the corresponding male categories, who are usually "male Xs". So, I have decided to propose renaming this to Category:Female actors. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bands photographed by S. Bollmann

Mixing topic and user categories is not allowed and causing issues, see COM:USERCAT. I would suggest you make a list out of it Multichill (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is with this category. According to COM:USERCAT rules, user categories should be marked as user categories. And that's what it is. That satisfies the established rules. In addition, this is a project sponsored by the German Wikipedia. I need the list for my Wikipedia work. S. Bollmann (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@S. Bollmann: Subcategories of user categories must also be marked as user categories, and not be categorised under the main category tree. ^source. Multichill (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pre-1974 United States hazmat placards

Category no longer needed. Further research into history of United States Hazmat markings revealed this to have been a poor category approach, due to extensive changes and markings being mode of transportation specific. Also the year is incorrect, as the major shift happened in 1977. The Navigators (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"Faculty" versus "faculties"

• Category:Faculties by university or college
• Category:Faculties by university or college by country
• Category:Faculty
• Category:Faculty by educational institution
• Category:Faculty by university or college by country
• Category:University and college faculty by country

Should categories use the singular "faculty" or the plural "faculties", given the term "faculty" is a collective noun? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, is the term "faculty" restricted to higher education institutions (i.e. universities and colleges) or can be used for institutions like schools? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced these should be Commons categories at all. The primary purpose of these category trees seems to be to track who has worked at which departments in various educational institutions, which seems rather tangential to the purpose of Commons. If Wikimedia is going to track this somewhere, it would belong better in Wikidata, so that other projects can use it, and so that the individual claims can have references attached to them. Omphalographer (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: There might be pics of individual faculty members of educational institutions, for which there are no Commons categories. Having faculty categories for them helps us separate individual faculty members from individual alumni, which is useful for users who navigate individual faculty members or alumni from the main institution category. Wikidata is useful for such cases, but only a few laypeople know SPARQL to look for a list of faculty members from a given institution. Query Builder is a very recent concept, and many users are still not aware of it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:(Narwhal (Steam bark), of San Francisco, Calif., mastered by Horace P. Smith, on voyage from 12 Mar. 1892-24 Oct. 1894)

The contents dont match the title. Mostly dated 1866 or 1867. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Outfitting book for the steam whaler NARWHAL's 1892 whaling voyage, as that's the title of the book as catalogued in the New Bedford Whaling Museum (); the current category name is actually the description of the book. Yes, the name doesn't match the dates within the book, but that's what it's catalogued as. Omphalographer (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nysans

Empty/unnecessary and probably misspelled category (should be "Nisani", if anything). Created by banned User:Kriestovo Nysian socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Moin. Ich bin der Hauptautor von Gau Nisan in de-wiki und kann bestätigen, daß diese angebliche Unterkategorie überhaupt nichts mit dem Gau Nisan zu tun hat - siehe auch die Aliasse bei wikidata - es gibt keine Form mit Ny... Das ist nur Spam. Bitte löschen. --Methodios (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Polonia Warszawa

No reason to delete. Without prior discussion of renaming. Mitte27 (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct. If you want to move the category to Category:Polonia Warsaw, you have to discuss this first.

@all: Currently, this user tries to enforce his POV regarding sports clubs categories by force. See also: User talk:Mitte27#Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories, Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:FC Bayern Munich, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 98#Category:FC Bayern München/Category:FC Bayern Munich and its subcategories, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Mitte27. -- Chaddy (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Я ничего не пытаюсь продавить. Вы переименовали категорию, которая называлась так в течение пяти лет, чтобы подтвердить собственную точку зрения в вопросе именования ФК Бавария Мюнхен. Я вместо вас открыл обсуждение. Mitte27 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Das ist eine völlig einseitige Darstellung deinerseits. Die Kategorie wurde vor fünf Jahren regelwidrig verschoben. Ich habe lediglich diese regelwidrige Verschiebung rückgängig gemacht. Daraufhin hast du die Kategorie mit bewusst irreführender Begründung regelwidrig zurückverschoben und damit einen Verschiebewar gestartet. Erneut, wie schon bei der FC-Bayern-Kategorie, versuchst du durch eine regelwidrige Verschiebung schon vor der Diskussion Fakten zu schaffen. So geht das nicht. -- Chaddy (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Незаконность возвращения названия это лишь ваше мнение; 2) Если категория так именуется в течение 5 лет без каких-либо возражений это консенсусная версия; 3) Вы начали переименование этой категории, после того как я упомянул её в обсуждении по наименованию ФК Бавария Мюнхен Mitte27 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be desirable and helpfull if we could stick to English as the language of communication here. On both sides please, no matter who is right. According to the other discussion, Category:Polonia Warszawa is the right one. איז「Ysa」 • For love letters and other notes 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

user:GPSLeo, please return the content of the category (Category:Polonia Warszawa, Category:Polonia Warsaw Stadium) the their original names until the end of the discussion. --Mitte27 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The original names are those from 2019 before Eksperto's renaming action. -- Chaddy (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

user:GPSLeo, please return the content of the category Category:Polonia Warsaw Stadium. --Mitte27 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Andronik Pavel

Hoax category created by User:Kriestovo Nysian socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Serra (Camp de Túria)

And also:

• Category:Serra (Valencia)

@CFA1877 and Joanbanjo: have been edit warring over this. I can't tell why, but work it out here. Please unprotect the page when closing this discussion. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood, @Mdaniels5757: . It would be possible to recover this version, in order to avoid duplicates categories for the same item? At least, while the dialogue lasts, until a solution is found. CFA1877 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Please restore to the original, this shouldn't have been moved. The edit warring was because there were no valid reasons for the change. I'm pretty tired of the user's behavior (other unjustified change that has to be restored ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanbanjo (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify what needs to happen here. Please both answer why you believe the name you favor is the correct one, given our policy, conventions, practice in other categories, etc. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Disculpad que no me exprese en inglés. No lo domino.

"Serra" és el nombre de la población y lo que se añade entre paréntesis es para desambiguar, añadido necesario puesto que hay otras poblaciones con el nombre de "Serra" en Amérida e Italia (por lo menos), además de ser un apellido muy común. Dado que Serra està situada en la comarca del Camp de Túria, en la comunidad Valenciana, tan vàlida és la categoria de "Serra (Camp de Túria)" com "Serra (València)".

Pero la categoria "Serra (Camp de Túria)" fué la primera que se utilizó y era correcta. Por tanto es razonable que ésta sea la que debe prevalecer y mantenerse. Además esta desambiguación es más precisa que "Serra (València)", ya que hay más probabilidades que exista otra "Serra" en la comunidad. Isidre blanc (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Serra (Camp de Túria) is a perfectly fine name for Commons policies and usual practices (Category:Serra would be better if it weren't ambiguous). Replacing a correct name by another, even if that other would be equally correct, is against established policies and common sense, and even worse if it's done unilaterally without seeking for consensus first. Pere prlpz (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Standing people at work

Consdering that we have a consensus to use "people activity" instead of "activity people" at Category talk:People by posture, what about this category? @Joshbaumgartner: any ideas? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:The Lion King (1994 video game)

Empty cat that likely could not contain any media for many years. A 1994 video game's characters, packaging/cover-art, and screenshots would all be non-free. DMacks (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Delete. I've tagged this for speedy deletion (CSD C2); this seems uncontroversial. Omphalographer (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Yacón syrup

This seems a long-term needless category. For more than six years there isn't any photo showing the syrup. Ies (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Keep while that may have been the case when this was nominated, there are now 7 images in the category, at least several of which clearly belong there. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Letters by Hu Jintao

Duplicate of Category:Signatures of Hu Jintao. None of the files are letters. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bulla of Gotland

Unnecessary, empty and misnamed category, created and previously populated by socks of banned User:Kriestovo Nysian. Future images (if ever re-uploaded) can be categorized directly in parent cat Category:Feoktist of Novgorod Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Kapelle Zum Kreuzchen (Trier)

empty category to be deleted. Content is in Category:Kreuzkapelle (Trier) Wuselig (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Old China

Not clear what this is. Not mentioned in the headnote of Category:History of China by period Rathfelder (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Me too. It may refer to either Imperial China or the ROC from 1912 to 1949, so it can be redirected to Category:History of China. However, the mere presence of this page can mislead newbies to think that we have categories like this. So, it is better to be deleted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Military history of Normandie

Isnt this the same as Category:Military history of Normandy? Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Normandie is the non-English spelling. Should probably made into a redirect for those of us who are not that savvy on minor differences in English spelling from the original spelling to avoid category red links or re-creation of this category. The original French spelling Normandie is common enough across Europe that it's likely that Europeans would use it over the English one. Nakonana (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alas, the problem goes deeper:

• Category:Normandy / Category:Normandie
• Category:History of Normandy / Category:History of Normandie
• Category:Culture of Normandy / Category:Culture of Normandie
• Category:Archaeological sites in Normandy / Category:Archaeological sites in Normandie
• Category:Old maps of Normandy / Category:Old maps of Normandie

And so on. The text at Category:Normandie suggests that there may be some distinction intended between these pairs, but I'm not certain it's been maintained consistently. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia calls both geographic/administrative entities — the historical one and the one created in 2016 — "Normandy". The attempt to distinguish them via English versus French spelling on Commons does not seem to be in line with the usual category naming conventions on Commons, and is probably completely unsustainable given the likely very common "Normandie"-misspelling by Europeans. People will add the category "Normandie" because they think that this is how the region is called, not to distinguish it from the historical region (which is also called "Normandie" in French and other European languages anyway). If we want to differentiate between the historical and contemporary Normandy, we'll probably need a different method of disambiguation than English vs. native spelling. Nakonana (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, interesting move log:

• it was turned into a redirect to "Région Normandie" in 2016: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Normandie&oldid=192267043
• but for some unexplained reason reverted back to a regular category in 2020: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ANormandie&diff=509144451&oldid=192267043

Nakonana (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And if we are going to keep both, we need some clear guidelines on what should go where. Having to doubly categorize every topic which could be associated with either region - like most of the examples above - is untenable. Omphalographer (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I cant see that keeping both is helpful or will work. The distinction is clearly invisible to many editors. Given its history it is rather wonderful that anyone would want to use the distinction between English and French spelling. I think they all need to be merged - which is quite a big job. Then it needs to be made clear how the Channel Islands fit in. Rathfelder (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)