Commons:Categories for discussion/Current

Category:Commons admin backlog#Categories%20for%20discussion/Current

Category:Benzol locomotives of Germany

Ironside, Son & Co, Gracechurch Street, London - 'New Century' motor locomotives run on petrol, paraffin or benzol

I propose, to rename this to Category:Gasoline locomotives of Germany similar to those of Indonesia or the United States (please keep the old category name as a link and remane also Category:Deutz benzol locomotives to Category:Deutz gasoline locomotives while keeping the old category name as a link). NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Benzol translates as "benzene" and is C6H6. Benzin translates as petrol in British English and gasoline in American English. I don't know the technical history of the benzene motors and why they were called so. Thus it would need a clear technical explanation why this category could be renamed. Otherwise it should be renamed "Benzene locomotives of Germany".
Eine Benzol-Lokomotive ist nicht einfach eine Benzin-Lokomotive. Ob man diese zwei technisch zusammenfassen darf, müsste genau erläutert werden. Gürbetaler (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Reading en:Internal combustion locomotive#Benzene leads me to believe that these locomotives really did run on benzene (C6H6), not gasoline. I  Support @Gürbetaler's recommendation to rename to "Benzene locomotives...". Omphalographer (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, by now, I think that it should be kept as it is, to avoid mix-ups between the German term Benzin and the English term benzene. The term Benzol was also occasionally used in English, as shown in the advertisement. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@NearEMPTiness: I also say sorry, as we ought to use a consistent name across categories for a given topic, per the Universality Principle. Things can be liberating if the principle does not exist (we can avoid using similarly-spelt terms), but that's not the case here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments of National Importance

I propose, to rename this to Category:Monuments of National Importance in India NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Why? Is that term used somewhere else? -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
No, it isn't used yet on Wikimedia Commons, but monuments of national importance could be in any country. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, "monuments of national importance," in lower case, could be in any country. However, when capitalized it appears to refer only to this official term used in India. If it must be qualified, I would suggest "Monuments of National Importance (India)," but I don't see the need to change it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
 Keep as it is – @NearEMPTiness and Auntof6: Although similar lists also exist in other countries (see Category:National monuments), only India names its list of national monuments as "Monuments of National Importance". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
 Keep By now, I agree, to keep it simple. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Prefer original nom in lowercase. How else can it be parented to Monuments? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mining equipment in United States (Done)

Please move to Category:Mining equipment in the United States NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. I did not check other categories' names before omitting the the. Викидим (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support – @NearEMPTiness: A category discussion is pointless in this case, as it is uncontroversial. Go to Special:MovePage/Category:Mining equipment in United States and rename this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Done including re-categorising files and sub-categories. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Flying Coaster (roller coaster model)

I am proposing that this category be deleted as over-categorization. It appears that the category has been created specifically for Flying roller coasters manufactured by Vekoma. However, the terminology used by Vekoma appears to vary between "Flying Coaster" and "Flying Dutchman". Because there is no clear term in use, and the limited scope of projects, this should be deleted. Astros4477 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:World War II memorials in Geghamavan

Delete. Only one WWII memorial in the Geghamavan. Kareyac (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Varistors for high voltage surge arresters

I propose to move the four files into Category:Varistors and then delete this category, please NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


 Keep The name "varistor" is usually used for low-voltage component , more often for electronics . It is a component by itself. "Varistors for high voltage surge arresters" are sub-components of surge arresters, only used in the High voltage electrical field. --Zen 38 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Copyright collective (Done)

I propose, to rename this to Category:Copyright collectives NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. thanks! iopensa (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support – @NearEMPTiness: A category discussion is pointless in this case, as it is uncontroversial. Go to Special:MovePage/Category:Copyright collective and rename this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Done including re-categorising the three subcategories. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1888 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:October 1902 in Pyrmont, New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:October 1902 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1902 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1900 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1829 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1835 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1836 in Central Business District, Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1888 in Suburb of Sydney, New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:1909 in Suburb of Sydney, New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:October 1902 in Suburb of Sydney, New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:2011 in Inner West Council

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:St. Georg (Gelsenkirchen-Schalke)

There is another category about this church: Category:St.-Georgs-Kirche (Gelsenkirchen) Cmcmcm1 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graz Linien Wagen 940

The category of this bus should also be named after the name of the type (Graz Linien Hyundai Elec City Fuel Cell) Öffis Graz (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral While I don't see a clear need, it doesn't hurt either to include the bus type in the category name. MB-one (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graz Linien Wagen 941

The category of this bus should also be named after the name of the type (Graz Linien MAN Lion’s City 12E ) Öffis Graz (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Neutral While I don't see a clear need, it doesn't hurt either to include the bus type in the category name. MB-one (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Categories of New South Wales

I don't think we need a category named "category". We have New South Wales by topic, so "Categories of New South Wales" is superflous. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would like to include Category:Categories of New South Wales by year in this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete To my awareness "By year" categories are normally put in the topic category without a "Categories of" category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. "Categories of..." categories are almost always redundant. Categories related to some topic should be under the top-level category for that topic; there's no need for an extra level of indirection. Omphalographer (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete per above. Category:New South Wales by topic has replaced this metacat for most purposes, rendering this category useless beyond categorizing other metacats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

shouldn't this be merged to Category:Petroleum statistics? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the charts and graphs should be moved to petroleum statistics. The rest (diagrams, etc.) should be moved to petroleum infographics. The petroleum statistics would be a subcategory of petroleum infographics. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. Per the category title I think there shouldn't be any diagrams in this category. However, looking through it, there are some diagrams in it. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cultural history of New South Wales

I think this category structure needs to be reviewed, I can see what they are trying to do, but it is very deep and I think we can coalesce Category:Cultural history of Australia by state or territory to just be Category:Human activities in New South Wales (and we of course need to do this for each state and territory). It looks unlikely we will ever expand the intermidiary categories. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. This is one of the most ridiculously excessive and circuitous hierarchies I've seen in a long time. For posterity, a major element of this hierarchy was:
with a couple of side branches which mostly lead to the same photos of grain silos, such as:
To be clear, there are a couple of real branches for other content buried in here like Category:Police equipment of the New South Wales Police Force and Category:Hangars in New South Wales. But most of it is just layers and layers of categories which just make it impossible to find anything in here. (The eventual categorization of all of these photos under "popular psychology" is particularly ridiculous.) All of this needs to be upmerged with a vengeance - taking a clearly tangible subject like "grain silos" and burying it in a pile of abstractions like "human behavior" or "supply chain engineering" is not helpful. Omphalographer (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Culture of New South Wales

Please note I'm not suggesting we delete this topic, however this category is all over the place. What are we trying to do with this? What areas do we want to include - I would appreciate seeing if we could come up with a better structure to this category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably something that needs a wider discussion at COM:VPP regarding "Category:Culture of "? Bidgee (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stilmöbel

I propose, to move this category to Category:Retro style furniture NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose; I'd prefer to diffuse the category to more specific categories and delete it. "Retro style" is inherently subjective and time-dependent, and not all of the images in this category are even furniture. Omphalographer (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saint Holy Mother of God church in Eranos village

Delete, not accurate name. Kareyac (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:2025-05-11 Run for Peace Wikipedia radelt mit

Kategorie bitte löschen, wegen Tippfehler, die korrekte Kat ist erstelle Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Food and drink in Europe

Somebody invented "food and drink" categories, two things together, the worst way of categorization. For example, in this Europe category, Italy and Turkey, two major countries with their contributions to the continent's gastronomy (food and drinks) do not even exist, while Greece is represented with a glass of beer! On the other hand, "food" categories include beverages everywhere. Simple question: Is milk not the very first and basic food that we humans and most animals consume? What about water? Therefore this dual arrangement is a total mess. Very regrettable. I was trying to avoid criticism and help within the existing parameters, but this is really disappointing. Please delete all "food and drink" categorization scheme. Dahiyane (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dahiyane: See also the category discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Food and drink. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hatherley House, Chipping Barnet

This is Tudor Hall. Hatherley House is next door. https://www.conance.co.uk/contact-us/ 82.22.173.0 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Travel in Australia by state or territory

Travel in Australia… needs to be merged to Tourism in Australia… note that I’m referring to the subcategories and not the primary category Category:Travel in Australia. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose — @Chris.sherlock2: We have both Category:Tourism in Australia by state or territory and Category:Transport in Australia by state or territory, both of which are valid subcats of Category:Travel in Australia by state or territory. You cannot put "transport" under "tourism", as "tourism" is about "travel for pleasure", while "transport" covers the means of travelling. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm I had a look at the global category tree more carefully. The confusion is that Travel and Tourism aren’t linked in that scheme, but somehow have been in the Australian scheme. I’ve fixed this now, so yes, you make a good point. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Human activities in Australia

Human activities is a level too high - we don’t need this. Take all the categories out of human activities and move them to activities in Australia. It’s unnecessary heirachy. We need to apply the YAGNI principle to this category. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw this now I've had another look. It turns out when I checked the global structure there is some use to this after all... - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Educational institutions in Australia

This is not needed - make it Category: Educational Organisations in Australia. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Wait — @Chris.sherlock2: We have a category discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:Educational institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Academia in Australia by state or territory

Empty category and all subcategories are empty also. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Education facilities in Australia by state or territory

Not necessary. All of these categories can be placed under Category:Educational Organisations… - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a standard category used also for other countries (see Category:Education facilities by country). There is a difference between a facility (eg a building) and an organisation. If it is the case that some of the files in these categories are wrongly categorised, then the solution is to recat them, not to delete some of the categories. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I went ahead and did some reorganisation. Sorry, you are correct and this is a necessary category. Apologies. I withdraw the nomination. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Naval ships named after people

I'm not sure if it redirection is good: I'm not a native English speaker, but I think not every ship is a warship... f. e. "Andrey Vilkitskiy (ship, 1966)" is an icebreaker. Wieralee (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Wieralee. Navies have ice breakers, survey ships, tugs etc. Additionally the main category is simply Category:Naval ships, not warships. The move should undo. @Illegitimate Barrister: can you comment on moving this category? MKFI (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
What about submarines? A submarine is a boat, not a ship. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Human populations

What is the scope of this category? Is this category restricted to only population statistics, or does it also cover population groups like Category:Ethnic groups and Category:Tribes? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Anthropological categories of peoples

Redundant to Category:Social groups. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Not the same. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: How is this category distinct from Category:Social groups or the broader Category:Groups of people? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Mainly 1. Not all of those here are actual groups 2. Not all of those at social groups are anthropological categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Heterotrophs

Category used to categorize food chains, and is thus redundant to Category:Food chain. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hybrids

Is this topic restricted to only organisms, or does it also include hybrids like Category:Hybrid architecture, Category:Hybrid flags, Category:Hybrid style or Category:Yoga hybrids? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's about hybrids in biology and that those cats would need to be removed if they're in this cat. Also see the Wikidata infobox. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sleeping organisms

Redundant to Category:Sleeping animals, as so far only animals (including humans) sleep or appear to be sleeping. I'm not a biologist, and I'm not sure whether plants, fungi or microbes can sleep, or at least appear to be sleeping in the traditional sense. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support. There are various biological definitions of "sleep", but none of them meaningfully apply to organisms outside Animalia. As it stands, this category - as well as many of its subcategories - is primarily being used as a union of categories which count sleeping animals and ones which count sleeping people; this does not strike me as a useful generalization. (There's no realistic situation where one would say e.g. "I need a picture of five sleeping organisms, but it doesn't matter if they're animals or people.") Omphalographer (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rare animals

Unclear purpose for this and its children. Seems to mix rare breeds, endangered wild species, and vagrants that are rare where photographed but common otherwise. Not to mention King Charles Spaniels and "Exceptionally fluffy animals"! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Move contents to one of the subcategories at Category:Species by IUCN Red List category depending on conservation status, and delete this one when empty. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Do not move. Neither "bird rarities" nor rare (endangered) breeds belong under any sort of IUCN category. 1) they are not species 2) they have nothing to do with IUCN classification. Bird rarities are rare by context, not population size; Upupa epops is Least Concern, but spotting one in the UK or Finland is very rare; local bird books list it as a rare visiting species and document the latest confirmed sighting as of the publication of the guide. If anything, certain IUCN status categories should be placed under this one. --Pitke (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  •  Redirect Synonym of Endangered animals in my view. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC) Updated comment per below. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
    Rare implies low total quantity if not relative to a specific region which is the case for many endangered animals, including extinct animals, but also arguably various other ones such as animals with certain mutations, rare dog breeds and whatnot. So I think it should not redirect there but maybe could become a disambig page with a link to there. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Redirect to what category? We already have well defined cats for endangered species, but none other that would encompass endangered species, contextually rare sightings (like Upupa epops in GB), and animals with mutations or unusual expressions of common phenotypes. Did you mean rename? --Pitke (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Info I've created Category:Rarity. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mexican Shepherd

I can't find any indication that this is a recognized dog breed. Omphalographer (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you might be right. I assumed the dog in the photo was a "Mexican Shepherd" based on this description about it in Spanish (can be found in details of the photo):
Moye o Pastor Mexicano: Esta raza habita en el sur de la Republica Mexicana, principalmente en climas calientes. Una de las caracteristicas principales de esta raza son las orejas grandes levantadas y algo puntiagudas. su pelaje es de una combinacion perfecta del color blanco y negro, brilloso y suave. Sucaracter es otra de las caracteristicas que distinguen a esta raza es su caracter amistoso y jugueton. Una de sus virtudes es que es un magnifico guardian capas de detectar y avisar si se acerca alguien que no es de el lugar donde se encuentra. Esta raza es ideal para convivir con la familia y cuidar el hogar.
However, Mexican Kennel Club has not recognized any breed under this name (as the Mexican Wolfdog/ Calupoh is a completely different breed). Canarian (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that description too, but the impression I get is that the author was probably just describing their own dog in glowing terms. It happens a lot. Omphalographer (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete one file (low qua, out of scope) plus the cat per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Body language in Australia

Empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:FREDERICK OF NAPLES

Should be deleted. It's empty and an all CAPs. Smasongarrison (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mapuche Shepherd

Just as with Category:Mexican Shepherd, this appears to be a description of someone's own dog, not a recognized breed. Omphalographer (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete both files plus the cat per nom. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:TV Ponta Verde

Category seems to be created as advertising and has no images in it. Nv8200pa (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bell charging station, Sydney, NSW

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bell charging stations in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mickey Mouse goods in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Minnie Mouse goods in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Disney character goods in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Character goods in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical documents

A useless category. All documents are historical. Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Oof. Yeah, this is no good - this category is being used as a dumping ground for documents which the uploader couldn't identify, or didn't take the time to categorize properly. The categories under Category:Historical documents by country should be upmerged to the corresponding "Documents of ..." categories. I'm not sure what to do with files directly categorized under Category:Historical documents; my inclination would be to simply decategorize them and tag as {{Uncategorized}} if they aren't in any more specific category. At least they'll eventually get looked at that way, rather than lingering here forever. Omphalographer (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I am working through them. Rathfelder (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Woodland, California

Woodland CA is home to 2 Sundials in the North American Sundial Registry. Registry dial # 950 is an analemmatic dial located at the Cache Creek Nature Preserve, 34199 CR 20, Woodland. Dial #1095 is a rare polar dial in the front yard of a residence at 410 Paula Way, Woodland. Both dials have interpretive signs / QR codes explaining how to use them and are easily viewed by the public. The only other sundial in the Sacramento Valley in the Registry is an equatorial dial #1024 located on the campus of American River College, Sacramento. Timmonswilliams (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

WTF? I'm not sure what you're proposing be done here. Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either, it doesn't appear there is more than 1 place called "Woodland" (singular or without "Hills") per GeoNames so I don't think disambiguation is a problem and the category has 11 sub categories and 52 files so I don't think it being too large (or too small) is a problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG buffalo

Does this category refer to buffalo in American or British English? In American English, "buffalo" refers to Category:Bison bison (American bison), while in British English it refers to Category:Bubalus bubalis (water buffaloes). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:People painted by Frans Hals

This category contains subcategories of specific people: not "Paintings of <person> by Frans Hals", but just their names. I don't think that's useful. Being painted by a certain artist is not a defining characteristic of the people as a group. Auntof6 (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually it is. In the period he painted, it's significant that he is only documented for painting a handful of people in Amsterdam on location at a guild, and everybody else he painted was physically in Haarlem where he painted them. He is documented as stating that he couldn't leave home to finish the painting he started in Amsterdam. Jane023 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jane023: Thanks, that's interesting. Some questions:
  • Is the notable part the fact that they were painted in Amsterdam? If so, maybe the category name could specify that.
  • Did he paint anything other than people in Amsterdam? If so, maybe the category doesn't need to specify "people", or maybe we need a category for everything painted there, with the people category being a subcat.
I'm thinking the category might be better with a different name, depending on the answers (but please don't rename it while this discussion is still open). Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
No he only painted about 5 people in Amsterdam in one painting that was finished by another painter. Almost all others (over 300) were painted in Haarlem. It serves as an interesting datapoint for people of the Northern Netherlands in the 17th century. During the latter part of his life (from 1650 onwards) most people who could afford and desired portraits traveled to the Hague Amsterdam, not Haarlem. Jane023 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
That may be the case, but a category on Commons isn't an appropriate place to represent that information. Our primary purpose here is to categorize media (like the actual paintings), not to describe relationships between things (like "this person had a portrait painted of them by Frans Hals"). Omphalographer (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. A similar category could be made for people of Amsterdam painted by Rembrandt. Jane023 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chinese FOP cases (indoor)

The Chinese FOP now accepted indoor works, so I think there is no need to categorize them as they are no longer considered as copyvio A1Cafel (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely this category would be a great starting point for revisiting these deletions? Just because it isn't applicable anymore doesn't mean we should forget that it ever was. Omphalographer (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Political assassinations and attempts

Two eggs in one basket, only one subcategory! How can it be "and" then? 186.173.46.48 11:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Not because of the union (which isn't necessarily wrong here), but because it's redundant to Category:Assassination. The vast majority of assassinations are, to some degree or another, political in nature; even if this category were populated it'd be largely redundant. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Inlaid mechanical table (Oeben & Vandercruse)

Duplicate with Category:Madame de Pompadour's mechanical table (MET 1982.60.61) The newer category could be the preferred one since it has the MET inventory number in the name. Sand-castle virtues (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Warner Bros. controversies

This category is out of scope for files and is just a container for a select amount of films added by an IP. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Disney controversies. As I said at the time, there's a whole mess of these. Omphalographer (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified Spathodea

There is only one species in the genus Spathodea, which makes this category pointless —  Junglenut | talk  07:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pleading

too ambiguous Rathfelder (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Weak support Even though the legal term is at the base name on Wikipedia the term is use more generally and the threshold for primary topics is higher on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support - this should be converted to a disambiguation between e.g. Category:Pleading (legal) and... something else to represent the non-legal sense of "plead", as seen in e.g. File:Moses Pleading with Israel (crop).jpg or File:MOREmoji pwease.svg. (What would be a good way of wording that?) Omphalographer (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Exceptional tram routes

No indication of what is "exceptional " about these. Appears arbitrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I’m having difficulty with the whole good faith thing here: Either you have no idea about public transit routes, and in which case why would you want to get involved in deletion of categories pertaining to it, or you do and therefore you know very well what an exceptional route is, but why then use the threat of category deletion to push some obscure point across… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
You’d be satisfied with merging this with Category:Temporary tram routes? (It’s not the same, but better than uncategorizing the whole thing.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I note your failure to not only assume good faith but also to avoid making spurious bogus allegations.
I'll be happy to discuss the category (since we are in "Categories for discussion", not "Categories for deletion") with anyone willing to adhere to such core requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, discuss, then: What don’t you understand about "Exceptional tram routes"? It’s only three words, and I presumed you know each of them quite well, surely better than I do. Why is this worth a discussion? Your o.p. is cryptic, and if it was signed by most anyone else, I’d have dismissed it as idle trolling. But it’s you, and you always have a point, and you’re often on the right side of things. So, what’s your point?
You say there’s «no indication of what is "exceptional " about these», but it’s like complaining the same about almost any other category like, say, Category:Ships built in 1990: Most of the subcats and files in this cat offer no proof or even mention about this date, except for the categorization itself, and that’s the usual way of doing things. Why target this "Category:Exceptional tram routes" with a unique demand for clarification?
  • And why target the cat itself for discussion, as you seemingly are complaining about lack of further clarification in each member of this cat?
  • Or do you mean that the cat page should include some explanatory text detailing what this cat is meant to cover? Then why not discuss it in the talk page, instead of going to the always confrontional and aggressive option of opening a CfD? (Which is primarily meant to decide about possible deletion, as you know very well: Normal discussions occur in talk pages.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Temperature diagrams

Most of these are not diagrams

  • should it be moved to Category:Temperature charts (or similar) – then some subcats and files would need to be moved out of the cat and the cat would miss currently many files or
  • should the charts be moved out of the category (a new separate cat may then be good) or
  • sth else

? Prototyperspective (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chiffonnier dans l'art

à supprimer, pour cause de doublon avec Category:Ragpickers in art Frédéric-FR (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of order of St. Augustin

to Category:Coats of arms of the Order of Saint Augustine for consistency with Category:Order of Saint Augustine and other subcategories of Category:Coats of arms of Christian orders Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Diagrams of iron and steel industry

Most of these are not diagrams

  • should it be moved to Category:Iron and steel industry charts (or similar) – then some subcats and files would need to be moved out of the cat and the cat would miss currently many files or
  • should the charts be moved out of the category (a new separate cat may then be good) or
  • sth else

? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Industry diagrams

Most of these are not diagrams

  • should it be moved to Category:Industry charts (or similar) – then some files would need to be moved out of the cat and the cat would miss currently many files or
  • should the charts be moved out of the category (a new separate cat may then be good) or
  • sth else

? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Audio files of organ music by J.S. Bach

doppelt, es gibt auch Audio files of organ music by Johann Sebastian Bach, sollte zzusammengeführt werden Subbass1 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Climate change diagrams

Most of these are not diagrams

? Prototyperspective (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Video games by name

Should this not be video games by title? Trade (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Puzzle shooters

is this even a real genre? Nothing on Wikidata Trade (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. What makes a video game genre "real", anyway? It's not as though there's any final authority on the matter. But this one seems like it's simply the intersection of Category:Puzzle video games and Category:First-person shooters; I'm not convinced we need a subcategory for this. Omphalographer (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete Sources are what make a genre real enough (although they definitely disagree often). The category contains two games, The Ball and Portal − which Glitchwave define as “First-person puzzler”. Meanwhile, googling returned for example this use of the term, but all of these are more what Glitchwave calls “Aim and shoot puzzle”. So I agree with Omphalographer that here it seems to be the intersection of puzzle and shooters, and I don’t think we need that. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I think "Puzzle shooters by name" should be deleted, and those two games moved to this larger category. It's fine otherwise, I think. ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lipovka (Ardatov District)

I made this category by mistake Leokand (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical documents of Poland

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Electrical generators with other machine

Delete - nonsense cat. A pointlessly arbitrary grouping with no real-world significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As the 3 subcats demonstrate, an electrical generator is well frequently grouped with certains types of other machine. See also Category:Bicycles with other subjects. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
  • A generator is a device for turning mechanical movement into electricity. It is implicit in the concept that they will be driven by something. We don't need this additional layer to imply some special grouping for these (and only these three?) cases. What is an 'axle-driven generator' ? A basic generator connected by a belt drive? Or some novel new machine, using the inherent geometry of railway axles (such things do get invented and become recognisable groups). But in the case here, clearly both ends of the design spectrum are being lumped in. This extra layer of categorisation adds nothing, and if it isn't applied to all generators, then it's misleading as it implies that the ones which are listed here are somehow special cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Manor House and Rhodes House, Sleaford

Duplicate category of Category:Manor House, Rhodes House, Wall and Gate Piers to Cobbled Yard and Garden Wall to No 33; it is unused Noswall59 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Keep, merge Category:Manor House, Rhodes House, Wall and Gate Piers to Cobbled Yard and Garden Wall to No 33 to it, so as to match d:Q17549231
The verbose name derives from the Heritage England listing: . That is typical. They often use convoluted names to clarify the scope of a listing. We have no need to do the same and can state a clear title and a more expansive scope as two separate properties in our description. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Santos v Ceará, 13 May 2025

Wrong name, created by me incorrectly. BrazilianDude70 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kings Reach

Delete - the term is too broad in terms of content, there are now bridge to bridge categories: from Vauxhall to Southwark Bridges. Adam37 (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Empty categories

listing of categories
After deleting files that are not in the public domain, these categories are empty. Gzen92 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Empty categories 2

Commons:Deletion requests/empty categories, list 2

This seems to be the same case as above. All those 60 empty categories are in the Category:Manuscripts from Gallica and they have the same type as those above. And it seems that they were created automatically by bot once. They should all be deleted now they are empty. —176.1.8.244 21:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Frescos in Cappella degli Scrovegni (Padua) - Apse by Anonymous

It's identical with its parent cat 'apse' MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course there are some identical files, but they differ in both directions, which one can easily see, for example the last 8 files of the parent cat concerning sculptures are not included in this cat. On the other hand files concerning only the frescos in the apse like e.g. File:Padova Cappella degli Scrovegni Innen Chorfresken 3.jpg are not included in the parent cat. Both categories concerning different subjects and artist's must be kept--Oursana (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Raining

Unclear what the difference to Category:Rain should be. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge tree into Category:Rain (and subcats), per nom. — hike395 (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Films by actor

This does not feel like an meaningful nor helpful way to categorize films. This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikidata. We are not supposed to list every single person who have ever appeared in a film Trade (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Robert F. Sargent

More research needs to be done to find all of Robert Sargent's credited WWII photography. MrPeanut05 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

So what are you hoping will happen here? Deletion of the category and all content? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Efteling Hotel

The name of this hotel changed recently, because of the new Efteling Grand Hotel (see https://www.efteling.com/nl/pers/efteling-wonder-hotel-nieuwe-naam-van-iconisch-efteling-hotel/). S. Perquin (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep The category was at this title from 2012 until you renamed it, per COM:REDCAT the part starting with "Don't delete categories that" it should probably be kept as a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Efteling Hotel

The name of this hotel changed recently, because of the new Efteling Grand Hotel (see https://www.efteling.com/nl/pers/efteling-wonder-hotel-nieuwe-naam-van-iconisch-efteling-hotel/). S. Perquin (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Albumen prints of Germany in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

Unused category - by sub-technique by location - that would just duplicate or move appr. 50% of "Photographs_of [country]_in_the_Rijksmuseum_Amsterdam. Peli (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam by country of origin

Albumen prints are sorted by collection only. They are already well sorted as Photographs by county by museum. Peli (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

the great number of files > 26.000 makes the parent cat Albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam useless, we therefore must create subcats--Oursana (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It is too hard to define (and to read out batches of this) 'country of origine' for travel albums by photographer X from country Y of the countries A,B & C, published in country N. The subcategorisation of the flatlist is already in progress by putting them in separate large categories like stereo cards, cartes de visite, cabinet cards and smaller like travel and family albums. All of them already should be in photographs by century and photographs by country or city (in museum X in A). Peli (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

Almost all albumen prints are from the 19th century. They are already categorised by date as " 19th-century photographs by museum " It would mean a move of appr 25k distributed files to fill this cat with no omissions. Peli (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:19th-century portrait albumen prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

unworked category where there would be over 20k candidates for it Peli (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Georgian Orthodox churches in Georgia

Rename to "Church buildings of the Georgian Orthodox Church in Georgia. Per all other members of the parent category of Category:Church buildings of the Georgian Orthodox Church by country. Not all church buildings of the Georgian Orthodox Church are located in Georgia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books about military history by year

Subdividing by language is okay; but the major subdivision should be by book topic; I think subcategories of the military history "by publication year" should be abolished.

It makes a lot of sense to connect publication dates and publication location (as in Category:1920 books from London), but I see no benefit in combining the publication year and the topic in a category name.

In 1920, authors could choose to write about the military history of WW1, about the Siege of Metz and about the military equipment of Roman soldiers. These topics have nothing in Common, books about history can be written a thousand years after the events or just two years later.

Please also see Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Books about World War I Enyavar (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support. The precise subject of a book is far more important than the year it was published. In fact, I'd argue that subcategorizing by year should always be treated as a last resort - not just for books, but in general. Omphalographer (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment@ What would we do with the books in these categories? Move them up to the decade categories or century categories? The same argument applies to "<decade> books about military history" and "<century> books about military history". Should we handle those the same? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Costume deletion requests in Japan/deleted and kept

Not necessary. Deletion requests with mixed closures can be categorized in both Category:Costume-related deletion requests in Japan/deleted and Category:Costume-related deletion requests in Japan/kept. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Make America Great Again hats

I suggest moving all the categories from "Make America Great Again caps" to "Make America Great Again hats" Trade (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: In that case, the CFD should be on the "caps" categories, not the "hats" category. Maybe you can list here the ones you want changed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
People wearing Make America Great Again caps (220 F)
Black Make America Great Again caps (5 F)
Pink Make America Great Again caps (4 F)
Red Make America Great Again caps (212 F)
White Make America Great Again caps (13 F)

--Trade (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:People looking left

please rename to something that is clear and unambiguous: Category:People looking to viewer's left or Category:People looking to their right (same for Category:People looking right) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I think all our "right" and "left" categories are from viewers' viewpoint. A hatnote rather than renaming is another option for clarification. I have no strong opinion as to if a hatnote rather than renaming is better option. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    If we implement hatnotes, it would be helpful to have them on all the related pages. You never know which ones people will or won't look at when categorizing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with Infrogmation. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
    If you're both unsure about what is better: my take on it is that renaming the category to something unambiguous is better because that makes it clear already from the category title. This means
    • people can find more quickly what they look for,
    • fewer miscategorized items because people thought it was meant the other way around, and
    • less need to look up the category every time to find out which way it was again when one forgets about it (I rarely add this category so I always forget which way it was so need to look up first)
    and probably some further advantages of having the title already be unambiguous. It doesn't make the category title overly long and I see no downside to just moving the category. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Commons files

thought about moving this category or discussing moving this category to Category:Commons file help since it's for meta / help pages, not the Commons files – however now wondering how this cat differs from Category:Commons help, there's many meta pages about files there too so maybe this should be upmerged or moved to another more specific title. What do you think? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:World maps of countries by gender

This category is not supposed to be an "X by Y" category (like Category:Buildings by country), despite its name. So, it should be moved to an appropriate name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:World maps of countries according to grammatical gender perhaps? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Creator, here. No problem with change as far as it's not deleted. The "by" may have been the inertia from wiktionary. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 18:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stamps

The vast majority of these files are postage stamps - at present a very small subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that myself. This should be a DAB containing Category:Adhesive stamps and Category:Ink stamps per the selectivity policy that "there should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." Other projects seem to do it the same way. "Stamp" as a synonym of "postage stamp" is really only used by or relevant to a small minority of people who collect postage stamps to begin with. Plus as things currently are, a good percentage of the "stamp" categories should probably be up-merged or outright deleted anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
There's a bit of related confusion in Category:Stamping machines, which has conflated the "stamping machines" which apply pressure to metal and the "stamping machines" which apply postage stamps to mail. I'd be in favor of a DAB at Category:Stamps (which should include Category:Stamps (metalworking)). The hard part will be dealing with subcategories - there's a ton of parallel category systems like Category:Stamps by year vs. Category:Postage stamps by year (related CFD) which need to be cleaned up and merged if appropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
There's also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Philately where it was decided that we would "allow for postage stamps of X categories." Although admittedly it didn't get much turnout but I don't think that means it shouldn't be factored into this. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Spherical panoramas

Appears identical to Category:360° panoramic photographs. Either a distinction should be clearly articulated or they should be merged. Sdkb talk 04:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The distinction is that spherical panoramics include the zenith and nadir, so they are a full sphere. 360° panoramas are a superset of that, which may be just a "band" around the equator (i.e. "looking around") 360°. The description of "spherical panoramas" already states that these are panoramas that include the zenith and nadir. Domob (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Some recategorization and modification of {{Pano360}} is due if that is the case. Sdkb talk 02:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Racing Bulls Team

Merge into Category:Racing Bulls. In turn there are two Racing Bulls team after I moved RB Formula One Team category. John123521 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge per nom. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)


Category:Portrait photographs of the Beach Boys

Unneeded clone of "Group photographs of the Beach Boys" – should be nominated for deletion Carlinal (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  • I disagree. There are other pairs of group/portrait photographs of musical groups. The difference is that the purpose of portrait photographs is just to show the people, and they're usually posed. There are other group photographs that show them performing or in more casual situations. I just moved the ones I think are portraits into this category. If this CFD passes, they can easily be moved back again. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Topics by size

This category tree (e.g. Category:Topics by size → Category:3 topics → Category:3 objects) seems entirely redundant to Category:Objects by quantity. Omphalographer (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:3 (number) → Category:Groups of 3 → (Category:3 topics) → Category:3 objects
You might be right. Last year, I created this category for some reason and necessity. But unfortunately, I don't remember it.
I agree this category to merge or delete. Thanks. --Benzoyl (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we could get rid of Category:Topics by size and its immediate subcategories (for example Category:2 topics). Those immediate subcats each have only one entry: the corresponding objects category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Wine vintages

These categories are in both Category:Works by year and year categories. Could someone please alter the template so they are only in one of those? Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: That's really a template issue rather than a category issue, but I took care of it anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:2006 in Borculo

Template Borculoyear does not exist, there are no simillar pages about Borculo, IMO category classifies for deletion. That's why I moved all the files to Category:Borculo. Mikinisk (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just spotted another cat made by the same user - Category:2006 in Ruurlo. It has the same issues the Borculo cat has. As this one has a lot of files inside, I think we can consider creating template and keeping this category. Mikinisk (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Campgrounds in Canada

Almost all the other countries call them campsites. Rathfelder (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Campgrounds in Brazil

Almost all the other countries call them campsites. Rathfelder (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Conferences by time

 Delete and move them back to Category:Conferences. we dont need an extra layer for these which are conventionally placed directly in the topic category. RoyZuo (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Delete The proper category name would be "by date" but I don't think the category is necessary regardless since there's only three subcats to begin with. The same goes for a lot of the "events by date" categories BTW. Probably a lot of them could, and should, be up-merged. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete upmerge. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment - does it even make sense to group this topic by time, or date, or whatever you want to call it? There are a lot of topics which fall under the umbrella of "conferences", ranging all the way from diplomatic summits to anime conventions. This feels overly broad; I think it'd be more appropriate to diffuse these all to more subject-specific categories by date. Omphalographer (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I was actually just thinking about that with the main category. It's not really clear what the difference between a conference and convention is. Apparently they both use the same Wikidata item and image. So I think it makes sense to up-merge things having to do with "conferences" as much as possible to avoid any ambiguity or duplication. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Leopardus guttulus in Parc des Félins

Leopardus guttulus or Leopardus tigrinus? Henrydat (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It's tigrinus, that zoo only has tigrnius- looks like Wikidieren changed it last year from tigrinus to guttulus, though I don't understand why. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I think only the uploader knows what they are because they are quite similar or who know about the zoo. Thank for your information. But you can move back over redirect instead of waiting for it to be deleted. Henrydat (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I only saw tigrinus/oncilla when I was searching for which cat it was-as they are silimilar looking as you say; though no reliable source says if they are tigrinus or guttulus. I tried, says can't be moved over redirect. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Okay, found their site, and apparently the zoo has both the species. Also, apparently guttulus was only recognised as a separate species in 2013- based mostly on genomes and geography and not appearance. So this is a bigger mess than I thought(for what it's worth, looking at images of the two oncillas, most faces look like those of tigrinus, though maybe their appearences overlap). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
So we just need to move back to the old name because not sure the reason for the name change. I sent a message but haven't received a reply yet. Maybe you need to wait for this discussion to close before taking action. Henrydat (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, the old old name was tigrinus- and it seemed like it was tigrinus from the description of the files (all of them were uploaded after the year the species were held distinct). Yeah, I'll not take any actions regarding this before this closes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
The original animals in Parc des Félins were imported from Sao Paulo, and were determined to be L. guttulus, which is why I moved the categories. However, since 2020 the parc also holds L. tigrinus of unknown subspecific origin, imported from Montpellier zoo. All images on Commons stem from before this period. Perhaps maintaining both pages might have some merit? Wikidieren (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Great. Maybe I should retract my suggestion. Per [], I think they are Leopardus guttulus. I assume this is important because File:Leopardus tigrinus - Parc des Félins.jpg has been used for Leopardus tigrinus and it is very similar to File:Gato-do-mato-pequeno.jpg. If they are similar in appearance only differ geographically per User:DoctorWhoFan91 then they default to Leopardus tigrinus. Because they are recently recognized as a specie, they default to Leopardus tigrinus. Thank User:DoctorWhoFan91. Henrydat (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Per w:en:Leopardus guttulus They have slight difference appearances, but they are hard to distinguish as because "more genetic variation tends to occur within each species, than between the two species". We definitely need to find/present sources for which species this is. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Probably yeah-I'll remove the deletion tag. It definitely is very confusing- the photos are from after the two oncillas were held to be separate, but are listed as tigrinus by the uploader, but acc to you(Wikidieren), the zoo only had guttulus back then. Where the source for them being from Sao Paulo, I couldn't find one? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I found the source for "It is slightly darker than the oncilla, has a larger rosette pattern, and a slightly shorter tail". We have two reasons. Maybe user:Wikidieren does not disclose the source regarding Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo is in southeastern Brazil where Leopardus guttulus lives so that is acceptable. You or someone else can close the discussion in any way. Henrydat (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, the paper that led to them being considered a separate species said that it might be hard to pick up on the differences due to intra-species differences being more than inter-species: they could be either. If Wikidieren can show the source for them being from Sao Paulo, then sure, it would definietely be guttulus. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we are both wrong. It is not zoo, it is zoological park on en:Parc des Félins or fr:Lumigny Safari Reserve. I tried to abbreviate it. Henrydat (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1879)

Improper use of categories (no images in it) Insomniac187 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You see en:Norfolk_and_Western_J_Class_(1879) and File:Class J 4-4-0 No. 19.jpg should be add to this category. I don't understand why Uer:ak22 doesn't add after create. Henrydat (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Educational institutions

There's a couple of issues with this category system:

1. It's not really clear what the difference is between this and Category:Educational organizations or the many subcats of it.

2. There's a ton of pointless overlap between this and the many categories for schools, colleges, universities, Etc. Etc. All universities are "institutions." So it would be pointless to create something like Category:University institutions or whatever to deal with the overcategorization.

3. "Institution" is badly defined and ambiguous. A high school is part of the educational institution but it is not an "institute" or "institution" itself. Whereas, again, all universities are institutions. So the extra word doesn't add anything in that context that's not already served by categorizing them as educational organizations.

The problems could potentially be resolved by creating a specific category for the "institution of education", which could include subcats for schools and the like, but I'd argue there's already Category:Education for that. The extra word "institution" doesn't actually add anything. Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a meaningful distinction here, but I agree that the wording could use some help. "Institutions" are entities like schools which are directly involved in teaching students. "Organizations" are a broader category of entities which are associated with education, but which exist outside of the formal educational system - like libraries, honors societies, or Wikimedia itself. Omphalographer (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't know. You get into some questionable territory when your organizing things based on if a subject is "associated with" something else or not. At least in the United States libraries have after school programs where they teach children about different topics. Day care centers teach toddlers their numbers and ABCs. I wouldn't call them institutions even though both are "associated with education" or whatever.
Maybe honors societies would be an exception, but they are "associated with" universities. So they are associated with education, even if they don't directly educate people. Look at this way, my local community college has a Starbucks. Obviously Starbucks isn't an "educational institution", but if I were to upload a picture of it and put in the parent category for the college then it magically would be because it's "associated with education." Same goes for the local office of the honors society at the college. We can quibble about semantics all day but it just doesn't work to categorize things based on association. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1 and Omphalographer: I think institutions are often formal organizations associated with one or more buildings or building complexes. On the other hand, organizations may also be associated with certain rooms of buildings rather than whole buildings or building complexes (like bank branches). I used to think that all formal organizations dedicated to providing education are "educational institutions", as they are usually associated with one or more buildings or building complexes (campuses). However, I have also encountered at least one nursery that occupies just a part of the first floor of a building, and we label nurseries (preschools) as "early childhood education institutions".
That's why I now think we should get rid of Category:Institutions but keep Category:Educational institutions, and define the latter as "buildings and organizations dedicated to providing education", as opposed to Category:Educational organizations that may include anything from apples to zippers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
They are both organisations though. Am institution is, by its definition, an organisation. An organisation can contain another organisatio, and this is frequently the case either childcare in New South Wales - primary schools often provide the facilities for an early childhood organisation. There really is no need for a seperate “educational institutions” category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk)< Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1 and Omphalographer: I think there is another CFD on Category:Institutions at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/01/Category:Institutions. Pinging JopkeB from there.​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. I am not sure we just can get rid of Category:Institutions, because then:
  1. Category:Educational institutions misses a parent which explains the "institutions" part.
  2. Same for all kind of institutions with "Institution" in the name (or the equivilent in other languages).
  3. Category:Organizations is broad enough and large enough to have a subcategory like this. Otherwise the subcategories of Category:Institutions should be moved somewhere within Category:Organizations, where they might not be findable enough/get lost.
JopkeB (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
There's no need to "explain" the words used in a fixed expression like "educational institution", especially since the words used in other languages are likely to be different. Omphalographer (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: With your third point there's already Category:Institutes. I don't see why that wouldn't be adequate. Otherwise there's just pointless overlap between the two category systems. Most of these "institutions" are actually institutes though. I explained it somewhere else, but an "institute" is a specific type of organization. Whereas, the word "institution" is either a synonym for "organization" or something general of cultural importance like the institution of law, institution of government, Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
But there was a discussion about Category:Institutes as well, without a clear conclusion. So to me that looks like filling one hole with another. Then we first need a clear definition of Institues, before we can merge both. JopkeB (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I feel these are two seperate issues and is muddying the water with this discussion. I don’t think discussing “institutions” as a standalone category is helpful in this specific discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1, JopkeB, and Omphalographer: I wonder what will be the fate of the "Institution:" namespace if we get rid of the corresponding category Category:Institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any reason that would need to change. Namespaces do not need to correspond to categories - we have a Creator: namespace but no corresponding Category:Creators, for example. Omphalographer (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: Oops, I have created Category:Creators as an umbrella of Category:Artists, Category:Inventors, etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I have to agree. The plain English definition of an “Institution” is “an organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose”. That’s exactly the same thing as an educational organisation.
we have already specialised the type of institutions, so it would simple to flatten this. I recently proposed removing “Australian educational institutions” as this Educational organisations exists with one subcategory “Australian educational institutions”.
Its an overly complex scheme with a division that has no meaningful meaning. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Miscellanea (Alba Iulia)

Unhelpful category. Should merge into Category:Alba Iulia Rathfelder (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree these kinds of categories should be deleted and their contents merged into the main category, as they serve no purpose. I've found several with a quick search:
There may be others. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Live animals

Why this category and not Category:Live plants, Category:Live fungi, or even Category:Live organisms? Like countries, organisms are either organisms or dead/extinct organisms. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plant biology

Merge to Category:Botany as synonym. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Agree. Unless there is some distinction between the two which I am unaware of (if so, some explanation hatnote would be helpful), merge into botany and make this cat a redirect. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plant science

Merge to Category:Botany as synonym. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman (all files)

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:GWR 4073 Class 4079 Pendennis Castle (all files) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gojong of the Korean Empire in 1884

Please delete; created by mistake. Didn't realize there was a "Gojong of Joseon in 1884" category. I think the "Gojong of the Korean Empire" and "Gojong of Joseon" categories should be merged btw; no reason to separate like this. seefooddiet (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete for this category, Merge to the two categories of "Korean Empire" and "of Joseon". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pole mounted post boxes at unidentified locations in the United Kingdom

Empty category that is unnecessarily specific, parent category can be used until a need is demonstrated for specificity. Sam Walton (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom, and I moved all the images to their specific regions, so only images with unidentified locations can go in the parent category. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Okcheongyo bridge

Delete; overlapping with Category:Okcheongyo seefooddiet (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
 Delete This category is identical to Category:Okcheongyo MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Can you please ensure that all images previously in this category go to Category:Okcheongyo (ndeed, why not set up a redirect rather than a deletion? MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Feral donkeys and mules

Another example of a union category. Can be split into Category:Feral donkeys and Category:Feral mules. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose some images have both, or one that cannot easily be distinguished as either. Should those go into Category:Feral animals and Category:Equus instead? That doesn't seem an improvement. –LPfi (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biosphere reserves of Mexico

This can be deleted as a duplicate of Category:Biosphere Reserves in Mexico. TuukkaH (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

TuukkaH: I agree we have a duplicate here, but wouldn't it be better to keep Biosphere reserves of Mexico? I don't see the need for a capital r. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the capitalisation is also an issue in addition to the issue regarding the preposition:
1. Delete the empty category Biosphere reserves of Mexico.
2. Fix the capitalisation by moving Biosphere Reserves in Mexico to Biosphere reserves in Mexico.
After these two steps, it's consistent with e.g. Biosphere reserves in Canada. TuukkaH (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plaza de España (Miami Beach)

Duplicate category - only prior image moved to Category:Española Way, Miami Beach. Sam Walton (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pictures of tornadoes

One of the rare remaining "image by topic" or "images by subject" categories. Such categories essentially duplicate the main categories as most media for a given topic are images. We can have categories on tornado videos, tornado-related books, tornado animations, etc., by the way. See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/01/Category:Images by subject and Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Images by topic Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep – Very much needed category. Two different pictures are taken of tornadoes: human photographers and automated systems. Category:Videos of tornadoes is a sub category in Category:Tornadoes. It combines both human-taken videos and automated videos. Mind you, videos of tornadoes are used on numerous articles, and one is even a Featured Video. If anything, one could argue the sub categories of Category:Pictures of tornadoes, could be merged into the parent category. But there is absolutely no reason to delete this category, given Videos of tornadoes is not being challenged. They are very different from each other and need splitting up. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Question — Sbb1413, you stated this is a “duplicate of the main category”. Can you explain how “photos of tornadoes” duplicate “tornadoes”? Another category under “Tornadoes” is Category:Radar images of tornadoes. Under your argument that it is a duplicate of the main topic, can you explain how File:21 April 1967 WSR-57.jpg is essentially a duplicate for File:April 26, 2024, tornado near Lincoln, Nebraska.jpg, or how that April 26 photo is essentially a duplicate for File:Dash cam footage of the 2024 Lincoln tornado.webm? As a weather-based editor, I am struggling to understand your logic on how it is duplicates. I literally uploaded File:Estimates of Minimum Wind Forces Causing Structural Damage.pdf today, which is essentially a book/academic paper on a tornado from 1957. You seem to argue tornado-related books, photos, and videos, all “duplicate the main categories”, but the main “category” is indeed Category:Tornadoes. Some better explanation on why photos duplicate tornadoes, but not videos, books, or radar images would be appreciated. WeatherWriter (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter: I want to remind users that "pictures" and "photos" are not synonyms. "Photos" are a subtype of "images", and "pictures" is a synonym of "images". Pictures/images of tornadoes can also include radar images, paintings, drawings, or any graphical media that are not videos, books, or documents. That's why we delete "images of" and "pictures of" categories, but not "photographs of", "videos of", "books of", "radar images of", etc. categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate that @Sbb1413: ! Do you have any objections to moving the category to Category:Photographs of tornadoes, which does not exist? I am 99% sure this deletion request was unnecessary and you instead prefer a category renaming, given you support a “Category:Photographs of tornadoes” existing, but not a “Category:Pictures of tornadoes”. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stanton, Derbyshire (civil parish)

Current title is enough to disambiguate from Category:Stanton, South Derbyshire (I created that category to move images incorrectly added here) but "Stanton, Derbyshire Dales" would probably be more useful for disambiguation; should "(civil parish)" stay in the category name? Peter James (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Information technology by year

Most of these categories are empty and there is clearly a big overlap with Category:Computing by year, which is much better populated. Should they be merged? Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge. "Information technology" is a vague, hand-wavey term that can refer to anything from copy machines to cloud computing. Some more specific "by year" categories would be good - I'm surprised that we don't have e.g. a Category:Computer science by year for theoretical topics, for example - but Category:Computing by year is a reasonable merge target for now. Omphalographer (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saswad

One image has 7 versions, there needs to be a discussion of which one(s) to keep DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Musicians by hair color

Arbitrary and unuseful category methodology Trade (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there's something wider going on here. See Category:People by hair color in South Korea - there's a whole forest of cross-cutting categories devoted to whether South Korean people's hair is black or brown, or occasionally other artificial colors. (And note that the subcategories of "Musicians" all drill down specifically to South Korea.)
@Explicit - it looks as though you've been involved significantly with these categories. Can you explain what their purpose is? Omphalographer (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
This is simply a breakdown of Category:People by hair color. My work heavily focuses on South Korea-related topics, so I will naturally prioritize subjects within that scope. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep There's nothing arbitrary about this categorization, the scope is clear. "Unuseful" is an opinion. No policy-based reason for deletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Music groups

Should this category and its subcats be called Music groups or musical groups Trade (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Actors by hair color

Not an useful category Trade (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep No policy-based reason for deletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tilt-shift miniature faking

"Faking" suggests intention of deceit. Change to 'Tilt-shift miniature effect' for neutral toned name. Pitke (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Miniature faking is currently named as linked. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:IPO Models

Please spell Category:IPO models with a small "m" NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment While we're discussing a rename: shouldn't this be "model" (singular)? The model is a singular abstract concept which these images illustrate; the images aren't each a separate model. Omphalographer (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chest hair on sportspeople

There was a CfD last year for a similar category having to with sportspeople with open mouths where it was decided that the category was to granular. I'd say the same thing applies here. People aren't looking for images of sports people with chest hair on here and it's not a defining characteristic of any of these people regardless. Not to mention a lot of these image are actually of neck, shoulder, or arm hair anyway. Not chest hair per se. So I think this should be up-merged either to the parent or the next category up from there. Really, I'd argue the parent category should up-merged to, since all of these images are already in multiple categories for sports people that don't involve meaningless random body parts that have no bearing on anything. Pinging people who were involved in the previous discussion @E4024: , @Beeblebrox: , @ŠJů: , @Estopedist1: , @Lallint: , @Ricky81682: , @Brianjd: , @Jmabel: , @Just Step Sideways: , @Nosferattus: , @Bohème: , @Benzoyl:

Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more about men showing their chest with sports then it has anything specifically to do with chest hair. So if this is kept then that should be the focus. Although I still think either one is worth having but at least a category for something like shirtless boxers or wrestlers kind of makes sense. It's not really about chest hair in those situations though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. In general, I find these very objectifying categories about people objectionable (near-pun not exactly unintentional). - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't have to combine all possible categories into intersection categories. This is not a useful intersection category and most of the photos in it don't even show chest hair on sportspeople (strangely). Nosferattus (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
    Agree. Or the amount of hair visible is exceedingly small, e.g. File:Costacurta 1992.jpg or File:Filippo Tortu (ITA) 2022.jpg. Collecting images which show what chest hair looks like is a perfectly reasonable task for a category; collecting every image where a single hair is visible is not. Omphalographer (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Toyooka-shin Station (tentative)

I suggest moving it to 'Takaokadaruma Station'. I made the category in July 2024. I have tentatively named "Toyooka-shin Station (tentative)" because the station have not name then. the railway organization named 'Takaokadaruma Station' in December 2024. eien20 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:National Day

Wouldnt National Days be a better title? Rathfelder (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fachwerkknaggen in Lower Saxony

The name of this category mixes english and german words in a rather inconvenient way. I don't know the exact english equivalent to the german word "Knagge", and I doubt there is an equivalent, since "Knagge" has many different meanings, see de:Knagge and the discussion. So "Fachwerkknagge" probably refers to one specific meaning of "Knagge" (is there an english word for this specific meaning? I'm not sure but I might remember having ssen similar elements in Chester). Since this architectural element is widely used in renaissance and medieval timber architecture at least in Germany, and many photos exist or could be taken, a category probably makes sense. How should it be named? Imo this should be discussed before many more categories come to exist. 2003:E4:5F16:9900:492E:F517:C79F:D92E 09:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Vbbsmyt

Probably nonsense: no understandable name, no description, no wikidata, has probably nothing to do with Cinema4D, created by IP. Only AGF prevents me from an immediate deletion request. Telford (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete and depopulate. "VBBSMYT" is the online nickname of a user who creates 3D models of various pieces of military equipment (cf. ); the items in this category are presumably intended as a list of things which they have created models of. However, this isn't an appropriate use of Commons categories - category membership is used to represent hierarchical relationships like "is-a" or "is-part-of", not arbitrary ones like "had-a-3d-model-of-it-created-by". Omphalographer (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Eindhoven bevrijd, 18 september 1944

Empty. No use. S. Perquin (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)


  • It is most misleading to say "Empty" or "No use" when it's only empty because you have just emptied it.
We have two other categories: Category:Liberation of Eindhoven and Category:18 Septemberplein (Eindhoven) where there is an overlap. We might reasonably say that these fulfil its role and so it's no use in addition, but that's a different issue. In particular we would need to think about either of them being redirect targets. Overall I think that this should be simply deleted, but the nomination could have been a lot clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose. It was empty because you removed the content out of it, and it had use before your action. This subject what the category is for is a war memorial. We try to have each war memorial have its own category on Commons (when at least one image). Merging categories is pointless and very counterproductive. In Dutch: Het plat slaan van categorieën is op Commons een zeer slecht idee. And even the changing of the categories you did wrong, as you removed it from the war memorial category tree. If this is the quality of your work, don't continue with it please, others have to clean up the mess. Romaine (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of a category with only 1 image in it. Regularly I see such categories being deleted. I further think that there is not really more to photograph than just that tile that was photographed. The only picture that was in the category was very nice, so I don't see why there would ever be more pictures in it. Now if there were several photos in this category, I would never have nominated it for deletion. I just don't see the point of this category... S. Perquin (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I have seen thousands of categories of just one image in it, not getting deleted. There is surely more to be photographed, this object is situated in an environment and this context should also be photographed to have a better understanding where this object is located. This is a very common thing to do, just hasn't happen here yet. Romaine (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, this object exists 10 times (on 10 locations), each of them should be photographed, both in detail and including the environment. Romaine (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
What does the category name mean? I can see the obvious meaning, but is there something more specific implying a particular monument, that I'm unaware of? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
The title of the category is how this monument is called. Eindhoven was liberated during World War II on 18 September 1944, to commemorate this event they created this object to keep it remembrance forever. By adding it in the public environment people get remembered every day about the horrors of the war and that freedom cannot be taken for granted. In the Netherlands every municipality created their own war memorials, from smaller ones to huge objects, and everything in between. A few years ago we have created an overview of all known war memorials in the Dutch Wikipedia. Since then various users went out to photograph these memorials and to add missing memorials to the lists in Wikipedia. Slowly more and more memorials (including smaller ones) get also their own article, but that takes a bit more time. Also this memorial likely gets an article. Romaine (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I might take pictures of the tile at 18 Septemberplein soon, so there will be more than 1 picture in this category! :-) Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Then if this cat title refers to a specific monument, with narrower scope than the other cats, and if that cat is itself a child of a cat for the set of those monuments nationally, then I would certainly  Keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kokborok Scripts

Please move to Category:Kokborok scripts with a small "s" instead of a capital "S". Please review the content of this cateory and move the persons to Category:Tripuri people NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Kokborok script. I'm not entirely sure why the people images are in this rather linguistic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Late Afternoon Glow

Please move to Category:Late afternoon glow with small "a" and small "g" NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support it doesn't appear to be a proper noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Automobile cockpits

A move to Category:Driving stands of automobiles was proposed by ŠJů years ago, with the rationale: "only racing automobiles have cockpits really". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. A "driving stand" is a device which holds up a steering wheel controller in position to play racing video games, e.g. the metal tubing in File:Sparco racing cockpit Pro FIGHTER Model.jpg. It does not refer to the area around the driver's seat in an actual automobile. A more precise term for this might be good, but this isn't it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tunnel construction

A merge with Category:Tunnelling was proposed by Andy Dingley more than a year ago, with the rationale: "COMMONNAME There is no reason for Commons to persist in clumsy invented phrases because it refuses the common and widely used term instead". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Tunnelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Charcoal burning

A move to Category:Charcoal making was proposed by HLHJ, with the rationale: "Clarity of scope. People keep adding this category to pictures of barbeques etc., which belong at Category:Charcoal fires. Not sure where we should redirect this category name". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tall and short people

A move to Category:Tall and short people together was proposed by Gambo7 more than a year ago, with the rationale: "to differentiate from Category:Tall people, which includes tall people only, and is not a superior category". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep — @Gambo7 and Alavense: Category names like "X and Y" should generally mean "X and Y together", except the union categories designated as such. We generally avoid union categories in the form "X and Y" or similar, simply because they are redundant to separate categories on X and Y. So, most categories named "X and Y" means "X and Y together", like Category:Gateway of India and the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Iron Sword War in Israel by city

Most of the subcategories here seem to have images which don't belong to 2023. Would it be okay to harmonize some other way, rather than with the "2023 Israel-Hamas war" formula? The issue was brought up by מקף־עברי in Category:2023 Israel-Hamas war in Ashdod. Looking to further discuss the issue. Alavense (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely.
In fact, there are many such categories because the name of the main category of the war originally included the year in which it broke out and the names of the subcategories were adapted to it.
I saw that in this edit, the year 2023 was removed from the name of the main category, which is currently called "Israel–Hamas war" - I think it is also a good name for the subcategories on the subject.
However, in categories related to Israel, I think it is possible and even better to use the Israeli name "Iron Swords War". In this context, if we are changing names, it is important to note that the word "Swords" is plural - in a way that matches the Hebrew name "מלחמת חרבות ברזל" and not "Sword" in the singular, which was probably also copied into the subcategories by mistake. Chenspec (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@Chenspec nailed it. מקף־עברי (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
By the way, the name "Swords of Iron war" is being widely used by official sources in Israel.
מקף־עברי (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
If so, the official name is definitely better Chenspec (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi Alavense, is there a decision? מקף־עברי (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tank railway wagons of the United States

A move to Category:Tank cars of the United States was proposed by The Bushranger more than a month ago, with the rationale: "ENGVAR. Subcats will also need to be moved". Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I have since learned that ENGVAR isn't really a Commons thing. IMHO it should still be changed though, since nobody in the US refers to these as "railway wagons". - The Bushranger (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kokborok Scripts

Please move to Category:Kokborok scripts with a small "s" instead of a capital "S". Please review the content of this cateory and move the persons to Category:Tripuri people NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Kokborok script. I'm not entirely sure why the people images are in this rather linguistic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Women with hand on head

A move to Category:Women with hands on head was proposed more than a year ago, with the rationale: Humans have two hands so the word “hand” should be plural not singular. Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep as is- most images has only one hand on head.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose. I agree that "hands on head" implies that both hands are being used in the gesture, cf. Category:Both hands on head. Omphalographer (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91 and Omphalographer: Yes, "hands on head" does imply both hands are used in the gesture. But we have separate categories for "both hands on head" as well as "hands on head". The naming logic works like this:
  • Hands on head — one or two hands
    • Both hands on head — both hands
    • Left/right hand on head — one (left/right) hand
This is like we categorize images of one person under Category:People, or one chair under Category:Chairs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
 Move Change to hands on head- per the info provided by Sbb1413- if that's the general covention on Commons, then I think we should follow that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bonds

A move to Category:Bonds (finance) was proposed by Crouch, Swale months ago, with the rationale: DAB per Wikipedia. Looking to discuss this further. I guess Category:Bonds could be turned into a disambiguation page, given that there are other Bonds categories. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support — Disregarding the Wikipedia dab, the term "bonds" can refer to a lot of things in Commons, including chemical bonds. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fort Bragg

I restored the name because Fort Bragg is official once again after the brief spell in which it was Fort Liberty. However, there is another Fort Bragg (Category:Fort Bragg, California). Should this one be moved to Category:Fort Bragg, North Carolina? It would be nice to have some input from other users. That would help with the reorganization of the categories by year (see Category:Fort Liberty by year), which still needs to be done. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Pingin 烤麵包機, who suggested that Category:Fort Liberty by year be renamed as Category:Fort Bragg (North Carolina) by year. Alavense (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support moving to Category:Fort Bragg, North Carolina. U.S. placenames are always in the form of "[place], [state]", except the metropolises like Category:New York City, Category:Los Angeles, Category:San Francisco, Category:Chicago, Category:Houston, Category:Detroit, Category:New Orleans, Category:Boston, Category:Seattle, etc. (Category:Miami, Florida is an exception of an exception, where a U.S. metropolis follows the usual "[place], [state]" naming). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Fort Bragg, California is a normal city while Category:Fort Bragg (North Carolina) is a military base, of which the categories follow a different naming pattern. 烤麵包機 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Moto Guzzi motorcycle engines

This category duplicates "Category:Moto Guzzi engines". Motacilla (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of mythological giants

All files formerly categorized under "Paintings of mythological giants" are now categorized under "Paintings of giants" and category is no longer necessary.

Both categories existed at the same time and were largely unused. "Paintings of mythological giants" contained files of illustrations depicting giants that were not from any particular mythology beforehand as well, so when it was even utilized at all, it was not utilized just for giants stemming from particular mythologies. I am personally trying to clean up the Giant categories and feel only one painting category is necessary, and thus have moved all files to the more generally named category. Panotti (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of mythological giants

Category:Bridgnorth

Too many files Medyanowsky (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So what do you think we should do about it? This isn't an unusual number of files for a town category. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Make some subcategories if you are familiar with the town? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Generic decay

This pertains to decreasing price over time of generic pharmaceuticals not geographical (e.g. urban, building, infrastructure) decay like the other sub-categories of Category:decay. It would be helpful to rename this category to indicate that it refers to pricing of generic drugs. Also, price decrease is subjective, so decay (with pejorative connotations) is not a generically (sorry-not sorry for near pun) helpful description. FeralOink (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chinese geese

A move to Category:Domestic swan geese was proposed by Grey Clownfish a few months ago, with the rationale: Current name is not inclusive of African geese. Looking to discuss this further. Alavense (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support rename to domesticated swan goosegeese- move the two chinese geese categories to "chinese goose" (assuming, of course that they are "chinese goose", as despite its name, african goose originate in China and adjoining areas). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support "domestic swan geese" in plural ("goose" is singular). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support ditto Mariomassone (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Conservation-restoration

This is a muddle; it conflates different types of conservation and restoration, including those of fine art and architecture. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Is there really a need to include her middle name? Trade (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably not, as we already have a couple of categories on individuals where we omit middle names, like Category:Elon Musk (not "Elon Reeve Musk"), Category:Joe Biden (not "Joseph Robinette Biden"), etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:10-5020 (aircraft)

It appears there has never been a US military aircraft with the serial number 10-5020. It seems to have originated as a typo for F-35 11-5020. ZLEA T\C 22:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sleeping and resting Equidae

Yet another union category, possibly because the creator cannot distinguish between resting and sleeping. But resting and sleeping are two different activities, regardless of animal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Creator here: I can distinguish between sleeping and resting equids. The naming follows the contemporary convention of that time 12 years ago, which I think was in place because for many, many other animal groups, sleeping and resting are harder to distinguish. I have no qualms for "sleeping and resting X" to be renamed and re-sorted, but this discussion should be expanded to cover all such categories, to avoid fragmentary overhaul and rehashing the same arguments again in the future. --Pitke (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)


Category:AK family

"Kalashnikov rifles" is a far more common name Trade (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be less accurate (not all Kalashnikov's designs were for this family, nor did Kalashnikov have anything to do with the later models), also far less recognisable per COMMONNAME. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
That does not mean they arent derived directly from the original AK Trade (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Blue laws

Is this a suitable title for a category? Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep. I don't see any issue with it. Per Wikipedia, it's a common term for Sabbath laws. Omphalographer (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
In the USA, maybe. Rathfelder (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
If you're aware of any more general terms, I'm open to suggestions. (The term I used earlier, "Sabbath laws" is a little bit more specific.) Omphalographer (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Sabbath laws would include, I think, Jewish observance of Saturdays - which is significant, but different. How about Sunday observance laws? Rathfelder (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)


Category:Prisoneers of War in WWI (Romania)

Should be merged with Category:Prisoners of war from Romania in World War I Alin2808 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Festival du cinéma en plein de Visan

This category should be moved to or merged with Category:Festival de cinéma en plein air de Visan please NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Municipalities in Denmark

The subcategories should be renamed from Kommune to Municipality as thats the correct English translation Trade (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

 Keep all — Those are official Danish names of individual municipalities, and we have a tendency to prefer non-English names over English ones in certain cases (for example Category:Côte d'Azur, not Category:French Riviera). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Please no. That would actually complicate things quite a bit, rather than simplify.Hjart (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kambabrún in 1974

empty category Steinninn ♨ 05:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There were pictures in this category. See the history.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC) I put the pictures again into the category.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
These pictures should be in Category:Kambabrún in the 1970s because 1974 is overly specific. Steinninn ♨ 07:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
There is no other year with images in the 70s. There are many decades without any images. By year is fine. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete Per the Village Pump discussion. At the end of the day this is totally pointless overcategorization as there's already Grensdalur volcanic system in the 1970s which this category just pointlessly duplicates. In general if the "by decade" category only contains two images to begin with then there's no point in creating a "by year" category. Especially in this case since both categories just contain the same two images. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biological life cycles

Upmerge Category:Biological life cycles to Category:Life cycles. Obvious duplicate categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Craftsmen

Downmerge to Category:Artisans. Redundant synonym (see wikt:craftsman). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support downmerge. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:2025-04-17 Stammtisch und Ausstellung Innenstadt in Trümmern

Bitte löschen, Tippfehler im Datum, die richtige Kategorie ist eingerichtet - Wunsch vom Hochlader Pimpinellus(D) • MUC•K•T 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

List of categories ending with "by year"

For many years there has been a problem with images taken in Iceland that they have to many categories. I'm trying to tackle this problem and starting with categories ending with by year. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousends. But I'm starting with 21 to see if there is consensus on my approach. If there is then I'll make a longer list.

The list: Category:Hellnar by year, Category:Snæfellsjökull by year, Category:Snæfellsjökull (volcanic system) by year, Category:Snæfellsnes Volcanic Belt by year, Category:Geitlandsjökull by year, Category:Langjökull by year, Category:Kirkjufell by year, Category:Ljósufjöll (volcanic system) by year, Category:Brennisteinsfjöll (volcanic system) by year, Category:Hengill (central volcano) by year, Category:Þorbjörn by year, Category:Öræfajökull by year, Category:Esjufjöll by year, Category:Eyjafjallajökull by year, Category:Geitlandsjökull by year, Category:Grímsvötn by year, Category:Katla (central volcano) by year, Category:Katla (volcanic system) by year, Category:Subglacial volcanoes in Iceland by year, Category:South Volcanic Zone by year, Category:Selfoss by year

I'm suggesting that these categories be deleted or (when applicable) merged into by decade categories. To be clear, sometimes it does make sense to split categories into years instead of decade. Category:Jökulsárlón by year is an example because it changes a lot every year. But this obsession of categorising every mountain and every glacier into what year they were taken has gotten out of hand. Later I will tackle other problems, like making categories for every volcanic system (examples 1, 2, 3 and 4) Steinninn ♨ 19:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. The amount of "by year" categories is off the chart. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Poor quality AI-generated images

Per the tempalte that implements it (Template:Bad ai), this should be more clearly named - I suggest Category:AI-generated images with obvious artifacts. Current name is just an invitation to subjectively assess quality of images and say "I don't like it, it's poor". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense but so far Template:Bad AI itself has been of that kind so that template in itself be more specific that it's about obvious artifacts if that is the case. I think it has largely been used in reasonable ways unlike not uncommon derogative 'AI slop' denotations for anything made using AI regardless of quality. I think it's intentionally a bit broad and not just about artifacts. Baby Oagen.jpg for example is just entirely indiscernible something and not really artifacts in that sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Manuscript covers

I had selected "Manuscript covers" to be covers of manuscripts (old handwritten books). Is the current use not just "envelopes"? I may be missing a subtlety. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the content here should probably be moved to Category:Manuscript covers (philately) or similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Grass taxonomy

This category and its subcats create this cycle (violating the Hierarchic Principle):

I suggest the following category structure:

For grass taxonomy categories,

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gallery of works by Anton Romako

I do not see the purpose nor the need of this so called gallery cat. Also this name is misleading. All the files should go to Paintings by Anton Romako, there is also a gallery. This cat and {{c|Paintings by Anton Romako are sorted by date, which is not useful, better by artist by title Oursana (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, this category has no meaning to exist. Go ahead if you want to eliminate it. Niketto sr. (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Futuristic vehicle concepts at the DAF Museum

Wrong name for the category I just created. Had to be without "the". S. Perquin (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Futuristic vehicle concepts at DAF Museum

Since there can only be trucks in this category, because DAF only produces trucks, I think this is a better name. S. Perquin (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Who told you that DAF only produced trucks? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
DAF used to produce cars too, but nowadays it's called "DAF Trucks" and they produce trucks. So I don't think there will be car concepts in this category. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
So File:DAF museum, Eindhoven (53925436072).jpg (and the others) don't exist? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
That was not my intention when I created the category. I created it to include scale models of future-like concepts of trucks from DAF, such as File:DAF Trucknasium (2025) (2).jpg en File:DAF-XFC Xtreme Future Concept (2025) (1).jpg. Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bos taurus indicus

Merge Category:Bos taurus indicus to Category:Zebu cattle (or vice versa). I believe the separate categories for scientific and trivial names are useful only for distinguishing the taxonomic subcategories from the non-taxonomic ones. But that's not the case here, as we have only non-taxonomic subcategories for zebu cattle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there's a debate on whether taurine and zebu cattle are two subspecies of the same species, or two separate species (I personally believe these are separae species as they are domesticated separately). So, it is better not to use scientific names to treat them as separate species for such cases (for example, Category:Homo heidelbergensis, sometimes considered to be a subspecies of Category:Homo sapiens). So, the category structure would be as follows:
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
There's also Category:Bos domesticus (en:Bali cattle), which is not a descendant of Category:Bos primigenius (unlike taurine and zebu cattle (sub)species). This can also come under Category:Cattle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children by chronological age

I once tried to tie the stages of development (babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, adult people, old people) with chronological ages (0-1, 1-3, 0-18, 13-18, 18-, 60-), turns out it is not a good idea, because the age-based definitions of the stages of development are always inconsistent. Instead, I like to define the stages of development based on certain "bright lines", like birth, first walking, onset of puberty, age of majority, signs of ageing, etc. That's why I propose to delete the "[stage of development] by chronological age" categories (except Category:Teenagers by chronological age, which is an age cohort rather than a stage of development). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:12-5040 (aircraft)

This is a typo for 11-5040. There is no USAF aircraft with serial number 12-5040. ZLEA T\C 12:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1 cattle

Rename to Category:1 cattle beast. "Cattle" is a collective term and should always refer to a group of bovines of the species Bos taurus or Bos indicus. But this category is about single instances of the species Bos taurus or Bos indicus. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. "Cattle beast" is a fairly uncommon piece of jargon and is likely to be confusing. "1 cattle" may be technically incorrect, but it's perfectly understandable. Omphalographer (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Organism development

Upmerge to Category:Developmental biology. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Interior of Le Meurice

images non libres de droits, appartiennent à l'hôtel Le Meurice 84.14.183.158 07:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:January in Sydney CBD

should be January in Central Business District, Sydney Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:February 2023 in Sydney CBD

Should be Feburary 2023 in Central Business District, Sydney Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:January 1880 in Sydney

empty - please remove Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Broadway, New South Wales by year

oops, a road not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:History of Broadway, New South Wales

oops, a road, not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1911 in Broadway, New South Wales

oops, a road, not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:July 1911 in Broadway, New South Wales

oops, a road, not a suburb Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Dioceses of the Orthodox Church in America (Moscow Patriarchate)

Needs discussion as it was emptied out of process without a reasonable explanation. See also which has "unnecessary clarification" as its justification. When is clarification ever unnecessary? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep There are many bodies of the Orthodox Church in America. Some are aligned with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, others with the Patriarchate of Moscow, others with the Patriarchate of Antioch etc. In short, disambiguation is needed. There is a long, convoluted history of the Russian Orthodox Church in America. Some disavowed the Soviet church, others were in communion with it. Either way, it is not reasonable that the average reader could be expected to know such things from a short category title; some parenthetical assistance is necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Уточнение Moscow Patriarchate как минимум не нейтрально - выражает мнение только Константинопольского патриархата, как максимум - оскорбительно, потому что заявляет, что мнения 5 (!) церквей, признающих автокефалию Православной церкви Америки, ничего не значат. Вообще за такое уточнение надо накладывать ограничение в редактировании за разжигание религиозной розни! Ыфь77 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I would invite the above editor to strike his unfounded comments about religious hated. Please stick to the facts: why is no disambiguation better than disambiguation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Почитайте историю, хотя бы про создание англиканской церкви, и поймите, что признание или нет автокефалии (= независимости церкви) - в том числе достаточная причина для казни епископа, а Вы так "вольно" с ней обращаетесь. Поэтому претензия обоснована. По существу: Orthodox Church in America - достаточно однозначное название, принадлежащее только одной организации. Что бы там не думал Константинопольский патриархат, но с любой стороны Православная церковь в Америке независима от Москвы: и с финансовой, и с юридической, и с литургической. Если есть неоднозначность, относящаяся к этой организации, то для её устранение нужно уточнение с названием её самой (например, OCA), а не организации, от которой она отделилась (Moscow Patriarchate) и это отделение признано самим Moscow Patriarchate. Почему-то для Русской православной церкви нет уточнения "Ecumenical Patriarchate", хотя в России полно православных церквей, которые не признают каноничности Русской православной церкви. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
"Fairly unambiguous" is insufficient. Full certainty is better. Not every reader is as knoweldgeable about alleged religious grievances as you. As an Irishman, I need no lectures on the alleged abuses of the Anglican church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
То есть Вы считаете, что проблема неоднозначности названия категории - более важная, чем факт оскорбления 5 международно признанных христианских Церквей? Ыфь77 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Laurel Lodge, ping one of the admins, otherwise I will continue to edit if the issue here is not resolved. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
You may not do that. While the discussion is active, disruptive, out-of-process editing is forbidden. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: If you did what you declare yourself. Ыфь77 (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bedivere: После того, как заблокировали, не решив проблему, может решите проблему, не заблокировав? Online translation: After we were blocked without solving the problem, can you solve the problem without blocking? --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Online translation: We both need the opinion of a third person, can you help? --Ыфь77 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
A few remarks:
  • Please, don't rework categorization while it is being discussed, unless there is consensus to do so in the discussion.
  • Most category names do not need parenthetical disambiguation in their names; at most they need a hat note.
  • Question: is there some other organization also using the precise name "Orthodox Church in America"? I believe there is not, and if I am correct then there is definitely no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. If there is, then there might be a reason for this, but even that is not an open-and-shut case: for example, we use just Category:George Washington as the name of the category for the first president of the United States, because he is significantly more notable than any other "George Washington". - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
But we also have Category:Washington (disambiguation). I know, because I created it. If anything, it shows the need for parenthetical disambiguation. A reluctance to use parentheses in category names does not make the problem disappear; the need for disambiguation remains. The main result of a reluctance to use parentheses in category names is to put more steps into the navigation journey for the average user who may not even know that there are multiple similarly-named things in existence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Your question ("Question: is there some other organization also using the precise name "Orthodox Church in America"?) is the wrong question to ask. That's because "Orthodox Church" is more like a set than a particular organisation. To the average user, it looks more like "Eastern Orthodoxy in America" than a particular church body. There are many church bodies in America that are part of the Eastern Orthodox Church; it would be wrong to allow one particular body to assume a quasi-ownership of the set name, simply because its own name is fairly similar to the set name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: Only my opponent forgot to add 2 theses: none of the territorial formations of the Orthodox Churches in America has the status of an independent Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and 2 deaneries are directly subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate in America. Thus, the clarification (Moscow Patriarchate) is incorrect, offensive, and does not fulfill the main task of resolving ambiguity. Оригинал: Только мой оппонент забыл добавить 2 тезиса: ни одно из территориальных образований православных церквей в Америке не имеет статус самостоятельной Церкви и Московскому патриархату на территории Америке прямо подчиняются Русская православная церковь заграницей (РПЦЗ) и 2 благочиния. Таким образом уточнение (Moscow Patriarchate) - неправильное, оскорбительное и не выполняет основной задачи - разрешение неоднозначности. Ыфь77 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: If it is decided to use a clarification, then it is necessary to refer to the Church itself (Orthodox Church in America) or use a common abbreviation (OCA). Ыфь77 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged so add hatnotes: . This is not a reason to add this to the category name, and there can be no good reason to add a disambiguation that effectively takes sides against this Church's autocephalic status. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
There is only one good reason to add a disambiguator to a category name - to assist navigation. That is what I am attempting to do. I am not interested in taking sides. I am not interested in insults - personal or otherwise. I think that @Jmabel: underestimates the complexity of Eastern Orthodoxy in general in North America and the Russsian tradition in particular in North America. A fuller understanding would see that many more categories ought to carry parenthetical disambiguation for their status in North America. The problem is larger than the OCA. Have a look at the Wiki category called Category:Russian Orthodoxy in the United States. Even that does not fully help navigation, but it's a start. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Hat notes are fine. But if you're reading it, then you have realised that you are in the wrong place. So further clcks are necessary. You realise that Commons has just wasted your time. All this could have obviated by the use of disambiguators in the category name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Online translation: As I wrote above, the chosen clarification (Moscow Patriarchate) does not solve the problem of belonging of the Wikimedia category to the Orthodox Church in America and creates a new big problem. Ыфь77 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm open to alternative disambiguators that you have to offer. Alternatives that occur to me include (Formerly Moscow Patriarchate) and (Autocephalic). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Law by year

These categories are then put into Science by yeat categories. Law is not a science. Rathfelder (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove it from the template. Just removed it, so only caches need to refresh. This should solve this. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Can we put them into year by topic? Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done By the way those cats are still missing most of the subcats and files that belong into them so it would be good if you or somebody could add some of the files missing there (files eg about new laws made that year). Prototyperspective (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Roman dodecahedron

Should be plural, "Category:Roman dodecahedra" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there seem to be many of them. --Watchduck (quack) 13:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1815 in New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1870 in City of Sydney

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:January 1880 in New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1715 maps of Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1717 in Australia

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1815 in Australia by state or territory

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Australia by state or territory by year

empty extraneous category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Australia by year by territory

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:December 1823 in Queensland

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1660 documents of the United States

United States did not exist in 1660 Rathfelder (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Words coined in the <decade>

Propose to rename:

All – per arguments outlined at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Neologisms, words and phases introduced in time periods. In short, the split between "phrases coined in" and "words coined in" is not necessary. Some of the subcategories aren't words, but rather phrases. Examples on Commons:

I also propose to remove the red categories (such as Words and phrases introduced in the 1890s) from the affected category pages.

For reference, I found these categories using a search "intitle:/Words coined in the/". —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Corresponds: [[:Category:Words coined by decade]] Allforrous (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
If we are going to keep these at all, I agree with the move. I'm not sure exactly why these categories are germane for Commons' scope, though. Question: given that this is likely to be an area of some controversy, and that Commons is not particularly known for clean practices of citation, what is the level of evidence required to make a particular category a subcat here? Also, the arbitrary emphasis here seems to be on English-language words. Why is it germane when the English-language name of the category was first used in English? E.g. "tofu" appears to have been first used in English in the early 18th century, but is a much, much older Chinese word. What do we do with that? According to en:Sociology, Sociologie is a French neologism with at least one 18th-century attestation that first became widely used when Comte used it in 1838, and I honestly have no idea whether it passed rapidly or slowly into English. Do we date it from 1838, or from the first attestation we can find for the English-language spelling with a "-y"? Jmabel ! talk 02:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
In case that was unclear,  Delete. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete I really don't get the point in these types of categories. At the end of the day categories exist to organize media having to do with the same subject together and I don't see how these categories help people do that. Like to show the category chain here, Category:Words coined in the 1880s --> Category:West Semitic languages --> Category:Canaanite languages --> Category:Moabite language --> Category:Moabite inscriptions --> Category:Mesha Stele. The Mesha Stele obviously isn't a word coined in the 1880s. Neither is the name "Mesha Stele." And I highly doubt anyone who starts at Category:Words coined in the 1880s is looking for images of it. There's obviously going to get to the category through ones that actually have to do with steles. So the whole thing is totally nonsensical. Everything in a category and it's subcats should related to each other in some way. Nothing actually does with these types of categories though. Their just pointless trivia that usually doesn't make sense anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Not being relevant to Commons' scope makes sense to me. I support  Delete as well. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Adamant1: while we reach the same conclusion, there is some bad reasoning there. Category inheritance is not necessarily an is-a relationship. It can be geographic location, authorship, or any of a number of other things. It can certainly not be presumed to be transitive.- Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: I see you continue to add these as we seem to be headed toward a consensus to delete them entirely. I would suggest you either don't waste your time, or come here and try to answer some of the objections that have been raised here, and explain why you believe this is appropriate to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment — At one hand, categories exist to diffuse and organize tons of media. On the other hand, there's an uncertainty on whether to follow the current English name or its etymon while categorizing the categories to neologism categories. @Adamant1 and Jmabel: I think instead of outright deleting these categories, can we repurpose them to categorize text categories, like Category:Covfefe, or even the raw images prominently showing the concerned text? --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @Sbb1413: I'd have no problem if these were limited to categories that are about words, but see no sign that is how they are being used. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
      • That's essentially my opinion about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Optare Solo M950 buses in the United Kingdom

Already exists at Category:Optare Solo buses in the United Kingdom (original, M950). Aethonatic (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Things with 10 things

I propose deleting because this is the only "Things with <number> things" category. The contents could be dispersed as follows:

  • If the item is already in an appropriate category that references the number 10, remove this category
  • If the item is a group of 10 things, upmerge to Category:Groups of 10
  • Upmerge the rest to Category:10 (number)

-- Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I find your main argument very weak — if applied consistently, no categories would exist, for any one category would have been the first of its kind at some point, and no other of the same kind would exist if the first is deleted before any second can be created inspired by the first. What should be done instead is to use the only existing one as a template for more — and that’s how most of our categories were created.
Knowing your consequent and overwhelmingly positive categorization work, I’ll take that statement for a lapsus calami and presume you mean a more nuanced take, which would consider that the solitary existence of this category shows its experimental nature to be unsuccessful, since several years passed after it was created and it failed to attract so far the sought example effect, with no other such categories were created. That’s passible of argumentation, even though I’d remain unconvinced.
I’m also not impressed with the three possible fates for the members of this category as it is right now — only 14 subcategories:
  1. Adalia decempunctata
  2. Aircraft with 10 engines
  3. Clockfaces for French Republican decimal time
  4. Decagons
  5. Decahedra
  6. 10-sided dice
  7. Engines with 10 cylinders
  8. New Ten Major Construction Projects
  9. Ten-pointed stars
  10. Ten Major Construction Projects
  11. Ten-in-hand
  12. Trams with 10 doors
  13. Trams with 10 windows
  14. Ten-wheeled vehicles
Can you please array these 14 into the 3 suggested recategorizations? I fail to see how even one of them would be better catagorized with such move, let alone all of them. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tortoises in art

Please see: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Statues of tortoises. Debate should be over there, this is just a notice.

In a nutshell: This category is placed in "Testudinidae", which means that only artwork of that biological family should be categorized here (AE definition of tortoise). However, the content includes all kinds of turtles as long as they walk on four legs (BE definition of tortoise), no regards to biology. Other languages don't even have such ambiguous distinctions among turtles. Enyavar (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1852 in New South Wales

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:2023 in Hunter Region

empty category Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:City of Orange (New South Wales)

there is no need for this redirect - and I note that I have been told off many, many times for creating unnecessary "New South Wales" appended onto the end of cities. For example, the Riverina. Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

For now  Oppose, the fact the English Wikipedia article uses City of Orange (New South Wales). Also you broke the Wikidata function due to the copy paste move. Bidgee (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
So what if Wikipedia does? This is Commons. Is there another City of Orange I should know about? And are you referring to any policies or guidelines I've missed? Also, the convention if you need to add in New South Wales is to use the comma, and not the brackets.
For the record, you excoriated me over this very topic, and you did a move without any discussion, so I hardly think you can talk. You also broke the change I made to Template:Orange year (or rather, it is now completely inconsistent). For someone so very upset about category changes made wholesale (which caused you to quit!), you do seem to like doing this yourself. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Your comment above is bordering being completely uncivil and is totally inappropriate.
Fact is Orange, California, is also known as the City of Orange. Bidgee (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Not really, you sent me a very similar message in tone some time ago so I'm not sure why you consider it inappropriate. It was not my intention to be uncivil to you. You did, actually, quit due to category changes and you absolutely have not followed convention. If Orange, California is the City of Orange, then there is no redirect to it and it is not the well known name for the place. It is not noted on the Wikipedia page, so you are reaching. The City of Orange in New South Wales is the best known "City of Orange", so if you feel there should be a redirect to City of Orange, California, by all means create it.
Per our standard practice, we in general use the best known name for the primary category. So the City of Newcastle in the UK is the better known city, so we use City of Newcastle, New South Wales for the Australian city. You are well aware of this convention.
You have not addressed my substantive points, which is quite uncivil. I would appreciate it if you would do so. You do have a tendency to think you "own" the category system. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And I wonder why you’re blocked on English Wikipedia.
You’ve turned it personal, I don’t own the category system but it is you who think you do. You moved from the naming convention that had existed and never discussed it. Bidgee (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
You are definitely making it personal. I have contributed over 30,000 images and have documented a large portion of South West Sydney.
This sounds like you have a personal vendetta against me. I am not blocked on commons, so I’m not sure why you are talking about Wikipedia in any way when it has no baring in this discussion.
You have not explained the following:
  • how is an English Wikipedia convention of using brackets at all relevant to the existing category structure here? It is absolutely clear we don’t add “(place name)” on almost any of our place name categories - and this includes Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland.
  • what does it matter if the Wikipedia article uses brackets? What Wikipedia does has little baring on how we work here.
  • you have not addressed the convention of the most used or well known name is the one we normally give weight to the name being chosen.
If you could please not get so personal it would be greatly appreciated. I know you have strong opinions on category structure, and I respect this, but you have not engaged with any of the points I have made above.
It is concerning to me that you have quit and then reduced your work on Commons because apparently someone changed your category structure in ways you did not like. I understand that not all contributions made to categories will always meet your approval, but I think you need to discuss and respond to discussions around this area, rather than throw around aspersions on an unrelated project I have not been active on for over four years (albeit involuntarily).
As for changing an existing system, I merely added some categories which have been quite successful, and I adapted the already successful minx template which uses suburbs, LGAs and regions. If you had any concerns about the adaptions I have made over the last several years where I have connected thousands of items from Wikidata to Commoms, you could have said something to me. I have never received any messages from you detailing your concerns in this entire time. There was a vague message I noticed on your talk page about someone making changes to a category structure you largely came up with independently - but I figure it isn’t me because a. I was sure you would have said something and we could have had a meaningful conversation about it, b. I didn’t actually make any major changes to any structures you came up with around things like bus and plane categories, I just made images go into specific suburbs, and those specific suburbs were placed into LGAs, and c. You also largely quit Wikipedia which I have nothing to do with any more, so I can’t see how any actions I made here would cause you to change your contributions on that project.
The only criticism you did mention, I do note, was a quite abrasive one over the words City of Liverpool; in that case I asked you some questions to clarify what you meant, realised you were right and took corrective action (after a few false starts). For what it’s worth, I appreciated you went to the Gazette and so this helped me understand the problem. Your feedback - despite it being quite confrontational - was really excellent, well reasoned and very helpful. I figured after this we were good! I’m not sure why you would think otherwise, and I’m not a mind reader if this was not the case.
I welcome a constructive response. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
In attempt to resolve this impasse, I would be happy to change this to City of Orange, New South Wales and make the existing category a redirect. This would comply with the existing naming conventions for place names in NSW. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
So it looks like this category has been moved by Bidgee, but I cannot see where consensus to make the change has been made. I'm not unhappy with the decision, incidentally, but surely under process shouldn't this at least be agreed to under the CFD itself? And I don't see anything under the category City of Orange, New South Wales. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I must have had a browser glitch as I can now see things populated under City of Orange, New South Wales. But my question still stands on process, especially given their revision comment "Allow the RfD to follow its course". - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I agreed to your suggestion (City of Orange, New South Wales), no one else had commented to this CfD. Bidgee (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Not for me, just for thee. We seem to be operating under a different set of standards. You could have had the courtesy of responding on the CFD. Did you want to close this CFD off now? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, can be closed. Bidgee (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rico by year

these all end up in Year in the United States by state. Puerto Rico is not a state Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

(2) In every case of Category:YYYY in Puerto Rico (e.g., Category:1937 in Puerto Rico) there is a template that is probably contributing to the problem above. That template reads,
States of the United States: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming – Washington, D.C.
Puerto Rico
To its credit, that template does list Puerto Rico separate from the states in the sense that it lists Puerto Rico alone, on its own row. However, Puerto Rico is not on its own block (I am defining a block as a political jurisdiction separated from the other political entities by a blank line/blank row. This format can give the impression that Puerto Rico is a state.
(3) Adding to the impression Puerto Rico is a state is that the Puerto Rico "block" has no header. This is unlike the previous block in that template (i.e., the one that starts with "States of the United States") which makes it overwhelmingly clear that the political jurisdiction entries that follow are states of the Union. To correct this, that template should have a header, such as "Insular areas of the United States", as follows:
States of the United States: Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming – Washington, D.C.
Insular Areas of the United States: Puerto Rico
Of course, it should also list the other insular area, such as Guam and the U.S.V.I.
Mercy11 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder and Mercy11: I think the problem can be fixed by creating separate "United States by territory" categories for each "United States by state" category (unless we don't have any U.S. territory to contain in the corresponding category). That can fix similar issues in many other categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is already a 2009 precedent on this that uses instead "FOO of insular areas of the United States". It can be appreciated HERE (Category:Maps of insular areas of the United States).
I would, instead, propose that format be used. My reasons are
(1) avoids creating parallel categories, meaning, why use a new subcategory that is synonymous with an existing one?,
(2) "territories of" is too generic, but "insular areas of" is specific to the U.S.,
(3) it would be technically incorrect to use "United States by territory" because the territories are neither part of nor IN the United States (they BELONG TO the United States but are not IN the US, as only the 50 states and DC are IN the US, so you couldn't possibly organize a parent category (in this case, the US) by a set of members (in this case, by territories) when in real life those members are not true integral components of that parent category, and
(4) the "precedent" alluded to above incorporates a template (again viewable HERE) that uses precisely the very unambiguous format I was alluding above; this one:
That is, it unambiguously distinguishes the states from the insular areas. (The only quarrel I would have with that template, BTW, is that someone forgot to capitalize the "i" in "insular". I would fix it but don't know how to work with templates in Commons.)  :-(
Mercy11 (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Curaçao by decade

It creates 1640s in the Netherlands, when it should be Category:Netherlands in the 1640s Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Toren Niko (Eindhoven)

Formally, the tower appears to be called "Lighthouse". That's why I renamed the category. So this category could be deleted. S. Perquin (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Damen Avenue, Chicago

Is this identical with Category:Damen Avenue? Should the entries be merged or the categories better named? NearEMPTiness (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Kept. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wagga Wagga (suburb)

It makes no sense to have a list of suburbs under the title "Wagga Wagga (suburb)" It would be better - and follow current conventions (not started by me) to use "City of Wagga Wagga suburbs". Suburbs don't fall under the suburb of Wagga Wagga. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... it looks like I've misunderstood this. It looks like the entries in the categorisation are the issue, not the category. We need a new category Wagga Wagga suburbs and move the suburbs of Wagga Wagga to this category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah crap. I've misread the items in the list. Need to close this down, what I thought were suburbs are streets! My bad. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

a list of categories starting with Icelandic pronunciation of "xxx"

I found a lot of categories inside Category:Icelandic pronunciation of geographical entities with only 1 or 2 files. These can all be moved into the parent category. Here is the list:

Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Faxaflói"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Berufjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Breiðafjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Eyjafjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hvalfjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hafnarfjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Jökulsárlón"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Baula"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hverfjall"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Akranes"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of lakes in Iceland
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of mountains in Iceland
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Mýrdalsjökull"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Skaftafell"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Skógar"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Þingvellir"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Austurland"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Jökulsá á Fjöllum"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Akureyri"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Blönduós"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Garðabær"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hafnarfjörður"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Kópavogur"
Category:Pronunciation of "Landmannalaugar"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Vík"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Bláhnjúkur"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Bárðarbunga"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Brennisteinsalda"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Eldfell"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Eldgjá"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Fimmvörðuháls"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hekla"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hengill"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Hverfjall"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Aldeyjarfoss"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Gullfoss"
Category:Icelandic pronunciation of "Goðafoss"

Steinninn ♨ 08:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fondazione Museo della Shoah (Roma)

Please spell "Rome" instead of "Roma", or even translate the name of the museum, although they do not have an English website. NearEMPTiness (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Borisovka, Crimea

дубликат Category:Borisovka (Crimea) kosun (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Serlianas

"Serliana" as used in al subcategories, is plural. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical coats of arms of Burzenland

Category should be renamed to Category:Historical coats of arms of Țara Bârsei. Țara Bârsei is the most common name of this region in English, English Wikipedia and much of Commons have already updated to the current situation. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Police arresting Donald Trump (Eliot Higgins series)

this seems like a clear COM:DIGNITY violation. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I think this can be quickly closed here for this doesn't seem to be about the category as such but about the images in the category, so nominator choose the wrong forum. If the nominator thinks the images should be deleted, a deletion request for these should be filed, following the appropriate process, see COM:DR. VisualFileChange can be used to quickly nominate images in a given category. "Categories for discussion" is for discussing the naming conventions of categories and category deletion requests (note, not the content of categories). I don't think that a deletion request for these images would be successful, however, as they were quite widely discussed in the media and most of them are COM:INUSE. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Aerial photographs of Keflavík in 2024

User:Cryptic-waveform removed at least seven images (I know that because I was the photographer of those seven; see File:Aerial photograph of Keflavík around dawn, 2024-02-29 - 01.jpg for a typical example), then removed the parent categories and marked it for deletion as an empty category not likely to be useful. There was no indication of a rationale for why the category is not useful. This is simply not an appropriate way to propose removing a category. Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that its not the correct way to remove a category. But at the same time i feel this is overly specific for a category. These images should be in 'Images of Keflavík in 2024' and 'Areal images of Keflavík'. In my opinion. Steinninn ♨ 19:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Given the gigantic amount of less than ideal categories created by @Reykholt and @Hornstrandir1, it is just not feasible to discuss every single one of these rather clearcut cases. @Jmabel: Feel free to revert my changes if you feel like this category should exist. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
It's still feasible to provide an edit summary. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Fair. I'll do this moving forward. What do we do about this CfD now? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I want to also say that most of the categories made by Hornstrandir are useful and they deserve our thanks for their hard work over the years. But there are less then 1% of their contributions that are problamatic. And because of the large amount of categories they make this small procentage becomes very large.--Steinninn ♨ 20:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Administrator note: Because this CFD is still open, I have declined the speedy deletion request that was put on this category. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this category being deleted, now that there's been some explanation of why. FWIW, unexplained removal of a category from a bunch of photos followed by a speedy-deletion request for the category as being empty and not likely to be reused is going to cause any diligent user who had the category removed from their photos to waste a lot more time trying to understand what is going on than it could ever possibly save the person who is trying to save their own time by omitting edt summaries. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mayors of the United Kingdom by town

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

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

Category:Lanz tractors

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

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

Category:Videos of the 1900s

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

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

Category:National Socialism

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

Sorry, but I can't see (in Germany) that "Nazism" or "Nazismus" (German) is significantly widespread or correct. I find the short form unnecessary and trivializing. In my opinion, the short form distracts and obscures National Socialism. Please stick to the long form. --XRay 💬 19:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
In English-language academic, media, and historical contexts, "Nazism" is the widely accepted and standard term for referring to the ideology of the Nazi Party. It is not viewed as trivializing the topic but as a precise and widely recognized term.
Commons follows the principle of using terms that are most widely recognized and commonly used in English, as outlined in Commons:File naming and Commons:Categories guidelines. This approach helps maintain clarity and consistency for a global audience. While I respect that in Germany, "National Socialism" may be the preferred term, in the context of English-language categories, "Nazism" aligns with established conventions. This is a continuation of this discussion. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
 Info this CfD is a continuation of the discussion on the category's talk page: . Nakonana (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Nakonana, I will respond here to your comment. Nazism is considered a distinct German ideology that became widely known as with such term, while movements after the war should be categorized more accurately as neo-Nazism or neo-fascism, depending on the exact characteristics of their ideologies.
  • Neo-Nazism refers to post-WWII movements that are a continuation of the Nazi ideology, including its racial policies and other core elements, like anti-Semitism and Aryan supremacy.
  • Fascism during WWII was the political ideology of the regimes like Mussolini's Italy and others, which shared some characteristics with Nazism but didn't necessarily adopt the Nazi racial policies (i.e., they didn't focus on the idea of Aryan supremacy or racial purity as the Nazis did).
  • Neo-fascism, emerging after WWII, refers to modern-day movements that embrace authoritarian, ultra-nationalist ideologies, but without necessarily adopting the specific racial doctrines of Nazi Germany.
Regarding communism, the term predates the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and even Marx. It derives from the Latin word communis, meaning "common," and has evolved over time. However, Nazism is not just an abstract ideology; it specifically refers to the policies of the Nazi Party, particularly its racial and anti-Semitic doctrines. While other ideologies, like fascism, share some characteristics with Nazism, Nazism is most closely associated with the Nazi Party's unique and extreme racial doctrines.
Also, subcategories don’t need to be 100% identical to the parent category. They just need to be related. The purpose of subcategories is to group related pages and media under broader themes or ideologies. For instance, while the term Nazism may specifically refer to the Nazi Party's ideology in Germany, subcategories like Neo-Nazism or Nazism in Other Countries can be used to categorize related but distinct ideologies that share some elements with the original but are not entirely the same. The key is ensuring that they are linked by common themes or characteristics. (Commons:Categories) Nebula84912 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC).
Nazism is considered a distinct German ideology — ok, but is the category you want to be renamed also about the German ideology? If "Category:National Socialism" is about the German "Nazism" ideology then why are "Category:National Socialism in Germany" and "Category:Nazi Germany" subcategories of it instead of being parent categories? How can there be German Nazism outside of Germany? National Socialism" may cause confusion due to the broad meaning of "socialism" in political theory, which is not specific to the ideology of the Nazi Party. Why would it cause confusion? If people can distinguish between "capitalism" and "industrial capitalism" then why should they be unable to distinguish between "socialism" and "national socialism" and "nationalism"? "Socialism" doesn't have to be specific to ideology of the German Nazi party. National Socialism is a sub-form of socialism just like industrial capitalism is a sub-form of capitalism. German Nazism is then a German specific sub-form of national socialism. Nakonana (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
National Socialism is not a sub-form of socialism. It is a form of Fascism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've read a little bit about this in college, but from what I remember there was the National Socialist German Workers' Party before the war. People started using "Nazi" in the late 20s as a derogatory term for people who were members of the Nationalist Socialist party. I think that was in the early or mid 20s. It really didn't become ubiquitous until WW2, at which point it was used for anyone from Germany. Although German's didn't call themselves Nazis. Since again, it was derogatory. Then after WW2 it become what it is today.
So how exactly does that apply here? This category should be gotten rid of since Category:National Socialist German Workers' Party already exists and the categories currently in this should be moved there. Whereas, Category:Nazi should be used for everything during and after WW2. Generally though, it's a misnomer to call prewar Germans Nazis or to label everyone who fought for Germany during WW2 a National Socialist. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@Nebula84912, thank you for open the disk page. Category renaming is a process, that are in some cases are not done in some days, so this is the right way. Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 04:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. While not all Wehrmacht soldiers may have been members of the NSDAP, the institution as a whole was deeply involved in supporting Nazi objectives and was implicated in war crimes. The Wehrmacht, as the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1945, operated under a command structure with Adolf Hitler at its apex.
The Wehrmacht coordinated with Nazi mobile death squads, such as the Einsatzgruppen, facilitating mass shootings of Jews and other targeted groups. Additionally, Wehrmacht units directly participated in atrocities, including the massacre of civilians and prisoners of war. The Wehrmacht also played a role in enforcing Nazi racial policies, contributing to the persecution and deportation of Jews and other minorities.
There has been a narrative of the "clean Wehrmacht," suggesting that the regular army was uninvolved in Nazi atrocities. However, this claim has been widely questioned and debunked by extensive historical research. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that the term "Nazi" initially started as a derogatory term. After the NSDAP assumed power in 1933, the use of "Nazi" declined within Germany, as the regime and its supporters preferred formal titles like "National Socialists." However, the term persisted among political opponents. Following World War II, "Nazi" became the standard term in English and other languages to describe members of the NSDAP and the associated ideology. This shift occurred as former party members were no longer in power, and the term became widely used in historical and academic contexts. It became standard terminology almost immediately after the war. The Nuremberg Trials, which began in late 1945, involved extensive documentation referring to "Nazi" affiliations and actions. Additionally, the U.S. Department of State's Foreign Relations of the United States series includes documents discussing the eradication of Nazism from German legislation and the liquidation of the Nazi Party. Nebula84912 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can certainly agree with the view that National Socialism (history) and Nazism (ideology) are different things. --XRay 💬 09:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
We should stick to the original name, it is the official term. So why rename a category that is correctly named? Yes, in some countries a different spelling is preferred, but that shouldn't be the point here. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 11:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't want you to misunderstand me. I am not in favor of the renaming. We should consider whether different things should be handled differently. --XRay 💬 11:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@זיו「Ziv」 The term "National Socialism" was the official designation used by the NSDAP to define its political ideology and movement. However, in English-language scholarship and common usage, "Nazism" has become the standard term. It appears in official U.S. and British documents and was formally used during the Nuremberg Trials. A search for "Nazism" and "National Socialism" in academic databases such as Google Scholar shows that "Nazism" yields significantly more results, reflecting its widespread acceptance in scholarly discourse. Additionally, Wikimedia Commons is an international platform, not a German-specific one. According to its policies, English takes precedence in category naming due to its international status. Therefore, Commons policy itself dictates that this should be the deciding factor in this discussion.
@XRay, do most academics and historians view National Socialism as a historical movement and Nazism as its ideological framework, distinguishing between the two? Nebula84912 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but unfortunately I don't know. --XRay 💬 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@Nebula84912, just to clarify, this has absolutely nothing to do with being German-specific. I would agree with you, if it is written in German, it is not, the English word is used. Even if a short form is established in some countries, that should not be weighted here. We all just say VW and not Volkswagen and yet the category on Commons is not called VW, it's called Category:Volkswagen. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 15:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I see your point, but given that "Nazism" is the more commonly used and widely accepted term in academic sources, official documents, and encyclopedias, could you clarify why you believe the less common term should be prioritized here?
"In Germany we don't say Nazism but National Socialism" appeals to German linguistic practice, but our discussion centers on English usage. Since Commons operates in English, it's more relevant to consider the term as used in English-language sources.
The claim that "Nazism is just a short form" and that Commons should use the "official" term suggests that "National Socialism" is preferable. However, in English, "Nazism" is widely recognized and extensively used in academic literature, official documents, and encyclopedias. This contradicts the idea that it’s merely an informal abbreviation.
The statement "We should stick to the original name, it is the official term" implies that "National Socialism" is the original or formal term in English. In reality, while it is the full name of the ideology, the dominant term used in English has been "Nazism" for decades. This usage is reflected in both scholarly and formal records. Roosevelt called Nazis as such. Churchill didn't use "National Socialism" once when he wrote Hitler's Reign of Terror, he used "Nazism" and "Nazi". And he also used the term "Nazism" in his speeches like in the opening of his speech of June 12, 1941.
The analogy comparing VW (Volkswagen) to Nazism is flawed. Abbreviating a brand name is different from the evolution of ideological terminology. While it's true that we use "VW" for convenience, this doesn't parallel how terms like "Nazism" develop and become standardized in academic and official contexts. VW is not used in formal discussion in reputable sources, Nazism is widely used in formal reputable sources. Could you clarify the reasoning further? Nebula84912 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@Nebula84912: I was just looking through the subcategories and it looks like a lot of them don't belong there to begin with. Like Category:Todesmarsch, which really doesn't have anything to do with National Socialism per se outside of generally having to do with Germany during WW2. Anyway, you might look through the category and remove everything that isn't directly related to National Socialism. I wouldn't be supprised if nothing is left afterwards. A lot of these overly broad categories for ideologies just get used as dumps for random files that ultimately have nothing to do with them.
That's why I said things specificially related to Category:National Socialist German Workers' Party should just be moved there and this category should be deleted. There's zero point in having the category or this conversation if most, or all, of what's in the category is just stuff to do with Germany during WW2 more generally, but not specifically National Socialism. Otherwise it's like putting everything having to do with the United States in a category for capitalism. That's not how categorizing files work. My guess is that the category is, or will be, totally pointless once the files in it are categorized better though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1, Todesmarsch refers to the death marches during the Holocaust. That topic already has a designated category: Category:Death marches (Holocaust), which is a subcategory of Category:Forced marches. Content about forced marches unrelated to Nazi Germany should be placed under Category:Forced marches, while all content related to Nazi Germany should be moved to its corresponding category. And the correct term in English is death march, the category Category:Forced marches also should renamed.
"putting everything having to do with the United States in a category for capitalism" In the hypothetical case that we create a category called "Category:Capitalist countries" or "Category:Countries with capitalist systems", which would be a subcategory of "Category:Capitalism", and we place "Category:United States" under this new category, then everything related to the United States would ultimately fall under "Category:Capitalism" due to its hierarchical structure.
However, Industrial capitalism is generally attributed to Adam Smith, meaning that "Industrial Capitalism" should be a subcategory of both "Category:Capitalism" and "Category:Adam Smith". Consequently, the category for capitalist or industrial capitalist countries should also be a subcategory of "Industrial Capitalism."
To comply with Commons:Categories, and to prevent unrelated categories in Category:United States from being grouped under Capitalism, we should create a category called "Economic System of the United States" or "Capitalism in the United States." This would ensure that these categories are properly placed under the appropriate category for capitalist countries.
Nazi-related topics not directly tied to the specific period of Nazi Germany, meaning those from the post-Nazi Germany era, are typically associated with Neo-Nazism. This category already exists. For things directly related to Nazi Germany there is the Category:Nazi Germany. Works from the post-war period about Nazi Germany, however, are still related to Nazi Germany and should be placed in the corresponding category, similar to how it is organized on Wikipedia. Both the Category:Nazi Germany and Category:Neo-Nazism are subcategories of Category:Nazism, which complies with the guidelines outlined in Commons:Categories. Items related to Nazi Germany should go into the Category:Nazi Germany, while items not directly related to Nazi Germany but still associated with Nazism should be placed under the Category:Nazism. If these items require a more specific category, we can create a subcategory under Nazism to organize them accordingly. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think most English speakers associate National Socialism with Nazism. Looking through HathiTrust, I find that hard search numbers are meaningless, as it conflates "Nazism" with "Nazis", but a look at the titles reveals that "National Socialism" in titles of modern English language works tends to indicate German authors and/or works translated from German, and that many major presses have used Nazism in titles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Salerni (Galleria delle carte geografiche)

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

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

Category:Parliament of Malawi

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

Category:Universum Film AG

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

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

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

Category:Aiserushura-hall

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

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

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

Category:Knight Cantons of the Holy Roman Empire

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

Category:Events in Italy by region by year

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

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

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

I agree that it seems to be too much here. If there was a big event in Rome for example it could be placed in "19xx events in Italy" and "Events in Rome" for example. If some years or regions have more than 1000 events it could perhaps be split up in year. --MGA73 (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
The linked image may not depict an event (whatever depicting an event would even look like) but it is about an event (in the broader sense of the word "event"). 1960 also seems to be a too recent cut-off date. There surely were some events in the 1950s, 1940s, etc. Nakonana (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm massively in favor of some by-year-category structures, but a lot of them really make little sense. If maintained properly, this category ought to be full to the brim with categories for each year and each region. Cities and buildings were founded and destroyed, battles were fought, peace was made, notable people were born and killed. However, most of these categories are unlikely to ever get proper maintenance, but they complicate everything with their granular structure.
Check out Category:1454 in Lodi (Italy), it has two subcategories that both host the same event - once by month, once by events. At the current stage of development of the category tree, "1454 in Italy" and "History of Lodi (Italy)" seem sufficient. I'm not sure what was originally in Category:Lodi (Italy) by year where half the categories are empty, but I see that those are the remains of actions like with this file, a plaque on a church that refers to the founding dates of its Parish. Those are relevant dates/years, but I don't think Commons should build a structured-data model with categories. If anything, we should build a structured data model with structured data (and make it easier to enter SD, which is currently a real hassle).
That actually reminds me also of Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:1066 in the United States - the content of the debate cat only has a single file with tree rings. That file ought to be placed in 842 categories, one category for each year of the tree's proven existence... or how about none of them. --Enyavar (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes this seems excessive; I don't know just how much it should be peeled back, but a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Categories "by year" are a horrifying nuisance when they destroy effective image searches by subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support Criticism against this type of overcat. When searching for a subject, I rarely exactly know when the gadget was painted, built or brewed, and I very rarely appreciate brute-forcing through gazillions of by-year-cats. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • Why this obsession on the fact that you can also find it by year? Because for a category like Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati it contains four subcategories and 2 files. Compare that to a category like Category:1803 events in Italy by region where there's a single subcategory, with a single subcategory, with a single subcategory, with a single subcategory for music when music isn't even an event to begin with. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a category like Category:1803 events in Italy by region if it was created after the 6 subcategories were filled with images. But your doing the whole thing completely backwards and creating a bunch of nested categories that are impossible to browse thorough and don't contain anything related to the top parent category anyway. At the end of the day a bunch of nested subcategories within subcategories, within subcategories that are only slightly related to each other doesn't serve anyone. Know one looks for Opera's by Giovanni Bertati based on the year and region of creation and categories don't exist to be stores of meaningless facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that for Adamant an "event" is something related to entertainment only. Not really. I tend to categorize things based on how ones for similar subjects are categorized. With Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati specifically, categories for other operas don't seem to be in categories for events. The top level category for operas, Category:Operas, isn't in one either from what I can tell. So it doesn't make sense to put Category:Opera libretti by Giovanni Bertati in a category for events when no other operas are categorized that way. Category:Music isn't a subcategory of one for events either BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
There are two types of libretto prints. The first type is clearly related to an event. These prints are comparable to program books. But there also exist later prints from music publishers which are not related to a specific production. Only the first type of files might be categorized below an event category. Opera or libretto categories themselves should never be categorized as event. --Rodomonte (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lambadi People

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

As per many sources online they have been termed similar to Banjara and on the same lines if we stretch the definition they can also be synonymous with Romani people.
Anyway Lambadis are the term by which they are known in the Deccan area i.e. parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Tamil Nadu etc. and Banjaras are the term they are associated with in North India.
So there is a subtle difference between Lambadis and Banjaras. (i.e in North India they are generally called as Banajaras and in South India they are generally known as Lambadis)
The most right thing to do (i.e. as per my opinion) will be if any person from that community comes forward and makes the right decision rather than people from another communities deciding how to categorise them. Thanks and Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Minimal wisdom of philosophy

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

Category:Prints

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

I think the main problems here are poorly categorized files and maybe some of the hat text. Some related categories (but not these in particular) may need better placement in the tree.
  • Category:Printing is the broadest, covering both technology and product, where the latter can be printed fabric; books, magazines, etc.; or works of art. I'd guess few, if any, images really belong directly in this category.
  • Category:Printmaking (under Category:Printing) specifically excludes books, magazines, pamphlets, etc. except insofar as they involve illustrations that could be considered prints in their own right. Examples of the exception to the inclusion: some high-end art magazines actually include prints in the proper sense bound in or affixed to pages; some zines are produced by art print techniques rather than conventional ways of producing printed matter. Direct inclusion in this category should be about process, not product.
  • Category:Prints (under Category:Printmaking) should be strictly about product, individual prints.
  • Category:Printed media is about product. I would say it should exclude printed cloth, etc., but include both prints and books, magazines, etc. I see that it is currently under Category:Printed objects, which is in turn under Category:Printing, and that seems correct.
Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Flags

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

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

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

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

category:flags by content seems similar to what you propose for category:flags by design and since 'design' in the context of flags tends to indicate that which is described by category:flag construction sheets, perhaps 'content' is a less ambiguous word? Arlo James Barnes 22:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. I've updated my proposal to reflect that. Omphalographer (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer:  Support the proposal as currently proposed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I came across this mixed bag of what I consider to be useless snapshots that a bot imported. The bot “should have known better”. I thought they were blocking the view to more relevant pictures. Luckily, they had a name in common, so it was easy to put them apart as a group. That I did. I will not shed a tear if the group is deleted. Rearranging the pictures in Kandıra, Kocaeli, Fethiye - Muğla categories I would consider a waste of energy. If that would be the result of a category deletion, I am against that. So in a way I agree with your “I also think Commons should not use this very peculiar type of category.” I would be glad if a thing like “Useless imports by bots that deserve deletion” existed. I see tons of useless imports, but do not want to spend my time on individual deletion requests (partly because on occasion I was surprised by “Keep”-s that were beyond me). Ben benieuwd wat hier gaat gebeuren. Dosseman (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, I put in some effort to add proper categories to this handful of files, so as far as I'm concerned, this CfD can be closed as  Delete. And honestly, just because an image looks useless to you, it does not mean it is useless to everyone else. Just leave them where you found them if you are not sure how to categorise; someone else some day will. That's the beauty of crowdsourcing in the Wikiverse. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I can live with the deletion suggestion but disagree with part of your arguments. As it seems I have uploaded (and categorised, grouping and regrouping mine and by others) well over 75000 pictures more than you have, I claim I have a certain experience in coming across rubbish.
I find crowdsourcing can have its benefits, but it is a bit like cleaning the environment: indeed, crowds will spend time cleaning it, but as long as larger crowds throw away their rubbish, we will see the environment getting ever more messy. I looked at the “effort to add proper categories to this handful of files” you exerted and find it impressive. And I noticed the pictures in this set had been untouched for 10 years, no takers for categorising until you came along.
All too often I see large collections of low-grade pictures that are the product of someone who took pictures from a driving a car or spent a few hours taking random pictures in a spot where I spent days to get to know it. Someone may indeed, as you did, identify a car is a Dacia Duster I. Good for you. But I wonder if putting its picture amongst the 380 unassorted pictures in “Rock formations in Turkey” too is anything but increasing the mess in that category. The first thing I saw there was a set of 308 pictures I had categorised as “Göreme seen on the move“ when I found them in the Göreme category. I regularly saw pictures by this photographer who is a good example of what I described as “driving a car or spent a few hours taking random pictures in a spot where I spent days to get to know it.” Maybe not useless, but most wrongly named and of dubious quality. I think the photographer spent one or two days in Cappadocia and took snapshots compulsively. I spent a few months in the area (also taken pictures compulsively, but walking, not hastening in a car). That is the experience why I will take your “Just leave them where you found them if you are not sure how to categorise; someone else some day will. That's the beauty of crowdsourcing in the Wikiverse.” with the grain of salt it in my mind deserves
You seem to be heavily into categorising, which for me is a side-activity to publishing pictures. I saw some recent work by you and did like your recent work on Van Heemskerk (Ja, ik heb alle drie tentoonstellingen bezocht, prachtig). Dosseman (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Some dumb person confuses the "urban" and "rural" parts of a district, village, city, town or whatever, of course both having the same name, therefore rural sights belong in the same-name category as the urban pictures. If there are two different places in Turkey with the same name, that is only a reason to classify the files. By the way I see that there is at least one more Karaagac in Turkey, in the province of Edirne. I get an impression that this guy wants to be the exclusive photographer of Turkey, eliminating pictures by others. It smells there is some commercial interest behind the contributions of this person. 186.175.224.93 03:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. While this may be an accurate description of this group of photos, it's not a category which lends itself to use. All of these photos look like they have geolocations; surely there's some more precise way to describe them, even if it's something broad like Category:Muğla Province? Omphalographer (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lohner GT6 in Graz

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

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

Category:Objects made of glass

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

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

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

Glassware also include Category:Laboratory glassware, by the way. But if glassware only include glass objects for food and drink, then the category should come under Category:Utensils in some way. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: I don't think so. Glassware would include drinking glasses, but those are not utensils. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/glassware "objects made of glass"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/glassware "drinking glasses or other objects made of glass"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glassware "articles made of glass"
 Support merging, but i prefer "glass objects". all subcats of Category:Objects by material should be "xx objects". feels more natural to me. RoyZuo (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by gender identity

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


Category:Konons family fresco

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

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

I'm merging the discussion for Category:Conon and Family Performing a Sacrifice here since the issue is the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Probably a matter of how to transliterate the original Greek Κόνων. English transliterations usually go via Latin, so "Conon". I'll note that on en.wikipedia.org, en:Konon redirects to en:Conon (disambiguation). By the way, is it me or are the two categories duplicates of each other? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Music in Lombardy by year

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

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

@SergeWoodzing: , @Jmabel: , @Nakonana: , @Enyavar: , @Taylor 49: , @Nosferattus: , @Prototyperspective: , and @MGA73: as people who were involved in the other CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support "getting of the "by year" categories for the 17 and 18 hundreds". Taylor 49 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Buchy of Milan 1789
Lombardy-Venetia 1843
First of all, which borders of "Lombardy" are we talking about exactly, and why would it be categorized under Italy in the first place? It's clearly "Music of Austria" until 1796 and from 1815-1860s. Sure, maybe not "clearly" and I don't demand that change, but the closer we look at definitions, the hotter the topic. Second of all, there is not a single such category for the 1700s yet, so I'd rather think we should debate the by-year categories for the 1730s, 1780s, 1790s.</precise language nitpicking over ;-D >.
Erm, yes I agree that the current structure is very granular for extremely few files for the 18th century: I'm not in favor of keeping an overhead of at least 7 otherwise empty categories for just 2 files buried down at the bottom. Such a ratio should be an exception instead of the rule. However, I also checked the 1800s, 1810s and 1820s: there is more material for example in 1814 music in Milan". If the dating of each file is provably precise and pinpoints music to specific years (I'm not an expert in music history and somehow doubt it, but it's possible?), I would tolerate the by-year by-city categories. If dating is less clear or if there are too few files to support "by-year-cats", I'd rather suggest to sort things by decade instead, making browsing easier.
That last point is because I dislike overhead structures intent on making it difficult to find files via the category tree, especially if their dating is on shaky grounds. On the other hand, the structure seems logically structured and was probably created with the best of intentions to reduce the amount of categories assigned to each file - that is a good cause. On the third hand, this structure is not yet templated, which means it is less rigid and can still be changed case by case. Hmmm.
--> I suggest cutting the regions (Lombardy) out of the picture, but not the "by-year in city" (i.e.  Support): "1814 music in Milan" would be directly in "1814 music in Italy" instead of "in Lombardy", but we'd delete the "art"/"music"/"events" in the Lombardy subcategories. As far as I noticed so far, in some years there are a few exceptional files from Brescia and Pavia (i.e. Lombardy but not Milan), but these are rare and I am not convinced that (although from different nations) the music of Genoa, Florence, Rome and Naples would be categorically different from the music of Lombardy.
Contrary to Adamant's point on "1900s file", I would rather think that the number of files for the 20th century declines sharply instead of going up: 20th-century files can be safely uploaded to Commons only until the 1920s, before Copyright goes rampant. However, 21st-century stuff is tapping different sources and "by year" may be totally fine.
All the best, Enyavar (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with keeping the "music in Milan by year" categories for now. Assuming I understand you correctly, deleting the "art"/"music"/"events" subcategories while keeping the ones specifically for music in Milan and putting them in ones for music in Italy would pretty much resolve this. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
To clarify regarding "art"/"music"/"events" subcategories: I meant "art in Lombardy by year", "music in Lombardy by year" and "events in Lombardy by year", for the 18-19th century. The equivalent categories about Milan seem okay to me. --Enyavar (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Against. In my opinion what happened is very interesting, because it is a clear case of culture clash between the old generation (I'm 66, 11 years on Wikimedia, half a million edits, thousands and thousands of uploads) and the newer ones. All I need is to read a statement as your sneering about "getting of the "by year" categories for the 17 and 18 hundreds". Tell me that I am dealing with people thinking music history started in the 1990s without telling me. Done. Well, Lombardy was one of the cradles of Western music. Think of Cremona, for instance, think of the Duomo di Milano who used to have a Johann Christian Bach' as his concert master. Think of La Scala (which was founded in late "18 hundred", 1778, yes!) I could make a long list, but I have no doubt that no one would recognize even one name. So, the point is: why, just because you cannot even tell what happened in the "17 and 18 hundred", you think no one else ought to?
As far as I could see, those against these categories consider music just as "entertainment", and want WikiCommons to be just an Instagram for the poor. They want to flick through the pictures of their favourite musical star, in a "seamless" experience unburdened by cultural considerations. On the other hand, being "old school", I consider music as culture, and I use and build Commons as an encyclopedia. Gathering knowledge and organizing it. Am I wrong? When I started, I was not, but times change, and maybe Commons is obsolete, and we should try to be something nice to scroll through, rather than as a boring encyclopedia, a place to find organized knowledge and data.
Notice that I have been, for years, cataloguing by place and date Ancient Greek vases, of Coins of Italy, and the issue never surfaced. But by accident I happened to cross the path of "entertainment", and here is the crowd protesting!
But I know that discussing won't be of much help. You have a different concept of what Commons is about: entertainment, not research, but it is ok. There is no "correct" use for Commons, any use is a correct use. So I want to propose a compromise. Let's take ancient music out of your "events" and "entertainments" and let's put it in a separate category. Or just exclude it from your "events". Let's decide "events" only happened after, say, 1990, and above all, not in Lombardy. Would you be happy, then?
(and no, please do not try to make a fool of me pretending my categorization by year and place disrupts your research about opera libretti who have remained for years totally uncategorized. In case you did not know, search cannot recognize them. They appear in my searches only AFTER I categorized them. Just pick a librettist in the Category:Librettos by librettist (yes, we old farts categorized opera librettos by author, what a stupid and disruptive idea!) and search for his name, and then select "Other media" in the results: You will realize how many pages and pages and pages of files in need of categorization exists within wikiCommons. This is what I am doing. And this is something you could contribute to. I shall appreciate any help from this point of view, because there is a lot still to be done. Best wishes.
User:G.dallorto (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that concern, and I hope we are all aware of the importance of Italian art, given how Italy is still world-reknowned as the only place within Europe in the 16th-19th century to get a thorough education in the arts. The issue at hand here, is not the precise categorization of works of art in general (please continue your efforts), but whether or not it should be categorized by region+year (additionally to "by city+year" and "by country+year"). I gave my contemplations on the topic above, already; but I also want to point out that the Commons category system is in my eyes ill-equipped to deal with a lot of historical files. It is great to get detailed categories on one hand, yet content "hidden" in deep by-year categories is harder to access and nearly impossible to easily compare with content of just two years apart. We'd need a better and most importantly a simpler system to input structured data for each file, to actually catalogue our content instead of just categorizing it. But afaik, that wish will need more time to get fulfilled. --Enyavar (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Look at this way. If there's "X" amount of files that can go in a by category then create it. I don't really care. Just don't create a bunch of categories that just contain subcats instead of files. Otherwise it becomes a Russian nested doll scenario, where users are forced to repeatedly click through a bunch of categories that eventually leads to a single file that they probably weren't looking for anyway. Categories exist to organize files. That's it. The system doesn't exist purely to create categories for their own sake and/or devoid of any concern of if it helps people find images. Your free to categorize images of Italy the 100s of other ways that exist to do that though. Multiple people have suggested doing it "by decade" or "by century." There's also structured data. All three of those are perfectly fine options. We should be using structured data more anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support - I agree with Adamant1's argument. If by-year categories are to be used at all within Category:Music of Lombardy, they should be restricted to periods with a large number of files. Otherwise we should use by-decade or by-century even. If you want to do more specific date filtering, you can always use the SPARQL query service. Nosferattus (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support. Overwhelmingly, these just make an extra step to navigate to a category for music in Milan that particular year, which is all we've got. Really, that doesn't seem much different with the more recent years. - Jmabel ! talk 05:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

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

@G.dallorto: Thank you for your hard work getting these files categorized. What would you think about organizing them by decade instead of by year? Nosferattus (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@G.dallorto: I shouldn't have to keep asking you, but it would be cool if you got the point and stopped recreating categories for Lombardy that were already deleted multiple times due to the CfD. The same goes for the "events in Milan by year categories." I told you, categories for music aren't subcategorized in ones for events. It's pointless to do this if G.dallorto is going to just ignore the consensus and repeatedly restore the categories and/or fill them with subcategories that clearly don't fit. I think Jmabel's comment is on point here. This just makes an extra step to navigate to a category for music in Milan. Regardless, G.dallorto you need to stop with the edit waring over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@MGA73: or @Jmabel: Can one of you either block G.dallorto or at least give him a warning so he gets the point since he clearly doesn't care about this or working collaboratively with other users? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Adamant, deleting categories that are under discussion before an agreement is reached, as you just did, is vandalism, in case you did not know it. (Btw you started the edit war, not me. I never touched any of the postcards you upload. It is you that decided that opera in Milan should not be categorized in chronological order because "I don't like it", which is not a reason).
Re collaboration, I just agreed to change "music in Milan" for opera librettos into "opera performances in Milan" because you wrote that "music is not an event", which I can concede without problems, but of course you did not like it either, because what you want is plainly and simply no chronology on WikiCommons. And you proceeded to delete the categories you disliked before the ongoing discussion reached any conclusion.
In my discussion page you also insist WikiCommons "is not an encyclopedia", therefore it ought not be encumbered with facts "no one is interested in". Who are you to decide what facts other people are interested in?
And who are you to decide Wikipedia is no longer an Encyclopedia? What you are thinking about is Instagram, not WikiMedia. Of course if the majority of the volunteers working here all of a suidden wants Wikimedia to become Instagram, or Youporn, or Facebook, OK, I couldn't help because such is democracy, however, it is not up to you, or to a small group of like-minded people you called here by @, to decide for everyone. This is a matter of policy regarding thousands of categories and volunteers, not you and me, and you can't solve it in two days as you please by forcing your decision and starting to delete somebody else's work.
User:G.dallorto (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
@G.dallorto: What's your actual issue with upmerging things to "by decade" categories besides just grandstanding? It seems like everyone here except for you agrees that the categories should be deleted and/or upmerged. So the categories are going to be deleted regardless of if its done now or once this is closed. So putting everything else aside for now, what's the actual issue with upmerging things to "by decade" categories? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
They are organized by decade already https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_in_Milan_by_decade. User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Then it seems like there's no issue here. Things can just be up-merged or otherwise moved to the "by decade" categories instead of all this pointless edit waring on your end over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support abolishing by year categories at this granular level in favour of decade and century ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

@Jmabel: Admittedly this is spread across a lot of different conversations but I don't think I made any personal remarks about G.dallorto. If so, they certainly haven't been to the degree as his towards me. Also, a good portion of the deleted categories were for "events" that just contained subcategories for music and music obviously isn't an event. So deleting the categories was totally appropriate given the circumstances. That said, I won't delete any more categories involved in this going forward, even ones that shouldn't exist, but G.dallorto has to at least not repeatedly restore clearly wrong edits just to justify recreating the categories. I don't think he should mass recreate ones that have already been deleted either. Since again, they were deleted for reasons that had nothing to do with the CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Yes, he has been even less civil than you, but read the paragraph you wrote starting, "I shouldn't have to keep asking you…" and consider how you would react if someone wrote in that tone to you. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:Personalised license plates

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

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Screenshot images from VOGUE Taiwan YouTube account

Non-free per Special:Diff/1009207199/1009209986, so the category and all the contents need to be deleted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Deleted. @Jeff G.: "Categories for discussion" should not be used when the issue is copyright. Please create a regular DR in such a case. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)


Category:1 Canidae

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

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

Category:Locomotoras Albacete

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

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

The three photos proposed for deletion look very convincing but might be a good fake. Please check also the following two photos of the same uploader, which might be part of the same scam:
Please check also the following three photos of a locomotive, which seem to be not affected and should be kept, please:
--NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from Great Britain by year

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

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

Category:Children by person

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

Category:Grandchildren of Ronald Reagan

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

I don't feel like these categories are redundant, they're clearly well-defined subcategories. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Keep all of these. Yes, there is duplication between information stored here on Commons and implied through Wikidata. We like it that way. It works. It works with the available tools we have that work on Commons and without requiring unstable, largely unavailable tools to query through Wikidata instead.
Also Sbb1413, will you please stop trying to find ways to 'improve' the remaining parts of Wikimedia that you're not yet indeffed from, and just causing unnecessary chaos instead. We are not here to create some model of Russellian logical perfection and consistency, we're here to store images so that real people can find them with their clumsy, broken real-world approaches. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Parents' siblings and siblings-in-law

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

You're not making yourself clear here. What are you suggesting needs to be done? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
 Weak keep. This actually makes some sense as a non-gender-specific category encompassing the English kinship terms "aunt" and "uncle". On the other hand, there's very little media on Commons which actually deals with these topics. Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by spouse's occupation

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

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

Category:Wildlife crime

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

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

Category:Germanic nations

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

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

Category:Prince (Ffestiniog Railway) on the Talyllyn Railway

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

Category:Funnelbeaker culture phenotype

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

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

Category:Tube aerators

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

Hello Andy, it looks like you are addressing me. I only happened onto your comment here by chance, though, as you didn't ping me.
Thank you for pointing to en:Tundish#Plumbing which I was not aware of.
I have thus reinstated the category:tundishes but left the other categories in place as tundish apparently denotes the funnel underneath the actual vacuum breaker valves depicted in the three relevant images.
I hope this resolves your concerns or do you want to make the point that there is not such thing as a tube or pipe aerator/diffusor ?
KaiKemmann (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Locomotives preserved on the Settle-Carlisle Line

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

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

Category:Petrol stations

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

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

Category:Fueling stations

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

Category:Celtic peoples

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

Category:Rudak Polonia

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

Category:Coats of arms od Reimsdyck family

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

Category:Graham

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

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

Category:Bach musicians

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

Category:Newspapers by year by country

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

Agree, and year should be first, standardize as "(year) newspapers of (place)". One advantage is that media can be categorized eg as "1910 newspapers" and if there is a subcategory for specific country it would be immediate apparent. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
This will have to be well thought through. Russia, Spain and the United States, which have loads and loads of subcategories, follow the "Newspapers of COUNTRY, YEAR". Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1936 stamps

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

Category:Videos of Wikipedia

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

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

Category:Stamps by year

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

No need for a CfD to make Category:Postage stamps by year a subcat of Category:Stamps by year. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. But the same needs to be done to the subcategories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:Racehorses of Japan born in the 1930s

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

個人的には良いのでないかと思います。Personally, I think it's a good thing.--Ocdp (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Why? Rathfelder (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
1930sから、日本の1930sへひと階層降ろすことに対する賛成という意味ですよ。変に英語使うと誤解されそうなので日本語で失礼します。--Ocdp (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Moxy

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

Category:Programmes

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

Strong oppose Will you please stop putting forward these terrible ideas for merges based on your poor language skills.
There is very obviously a clear distinction between these, based on common usage. This could be made clearer. We might even split the whole lot into clearly disambiguated names, and end up by merging the parents to deal with any language issue. But a merge now, with the content we currently have, is a dreadful idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Andy Dingley. Bidgee (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose merge; there are two distinct meanings involved here. That being said, distinguishing between those meanings solely by the spelling is hardly ideal, and a substantial number of files are being miscategorized as a result. Ideally, both Category:Programs and Category:Programmes should be disambiguation pages between "program(me)" (as in a government program), "program(me)" (as in a printed document), and "program(me)" (as in computer software - currently redirected from Category:Computer programs → Category:Software) - but I'm not sure how to word these. How can we make this clearer? Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Uncategorized media with description in Romansh language

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

Keep as no good reason to delete has been given. Sije (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment Is the discussion because it is not spoken by many people/is rarely non-empty? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Romansh is a relatively small language, with ca. 50k speakers (mostly in Switzerland). There are only ~4300 files on Commons with any description in Romansh, and the bulk of those files also have descriptions in German and/or English. I suppose there's no harm in keeping the category, but I also doubt there are many files uploaded which would be categorized here. Omphalographer (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
 Weak keep kinda superficial, but no harm in keeping, images in this category might even get more focus bcs of low occupancy. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Virsky

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

Category:Station Bar, Dewsbury railway station

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

no, this is a bar converted from a disused waiting room at Dewsbury railway station. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
So I looked at their geographical location in the camera location and the hotel and bar are separate locations near the station. However, the station bar only has one image, and the wikidata infobox belongs to the hotel, so the bar's category should probably be deleted, and the image moved to parent categor(y/ies). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks I've added the categories to the hotel. I guess now the main thing is if we keep the bar as a separate category or not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Is File:The West Riding, Dewsbury Station - geograph.org.uk - 489640.jpg the bar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Looks inconclusive- plus none of the images of the inside of the bar on maps make me certain whether it is or it is not the same bar. The station bar location comes out in its parking lot though. As this above image is not in any of the subcategories, I would suggest putting the station bar image in "pubs in dewsbury to" and deleting the station bar category as I could not find any bar that uses that name- might just be a local name at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91: Per Mtaylor848's comment about is being from the disused waiting room, according to WhatPub the West Riding was from the waiting rooms and there is another image File:The West Riding pub, Dewsbury railway station - geograph.org.uk - 7280045.jpg. If this is the same pub then it should probably be renamed to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury but if not we could delete the "Station Bar" category and create a new category for the West Riding pub. Even though the listing is for the whole station the pub seems to be a distinct enough named place to have its own category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, all this evidence does make sense. You should add that image to the category, and request a renaming.(I am not sure if the current name should redirect to the new name, as "station bar" is probably incorrect and it probably never has been called that-but I don't exactly know how redirects on commons work.) Great work on finding evidence that Mtaylor848 was correct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Compare the image on Trip Advisor with the image here, same black cupboards with hooks, same mats with holes and same black price notices with white writing. I think we should wait and see what Mtaylor848 says about keeping the redirect. Per Commons:Category inclusion criteria that I wrote I think in most cases if a name of a topic can be verified even if not notable on Wikipedia and even if not the most reliable sources then in most cases a category with just 2 pages is enough but I think if its a descriptive name then I think more like 5 or even 10 pages would be needed. If the category is only for the bar (in the sense of the place where you order the drink and food) then I don't think we would need a separate category from the rest of the pub unless there are many images of only the bar, most pubs and other buildings just have the images for the interior in the same category (and are placed in Category:Interiors of pubs) put sometimes (often for churches) a sub category for the interior is created if there are lots of images. Given it appears that the author intended this to be about the whole pub rather than just the bar its self since "bar" is often used to mean the whole pub I think we're fine with just renaming this (as opposed to creating a new category) but the question of if the redirect should be kept remains. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, renaming would be good, and would be better without leaving a redirect(especially bcs it seems unlikely anything looks to the current category). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
@Mtaylor848: Do you have any objections to either the proposed rename to Category:The West Riding, Dewsbury or not leaving a redirect behind at Category:Station Bar, Dewsbury railway station if renamed? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lebak

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

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

Category:Cathedral (Siena) - Main Altar - Ciborium

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

Category:TV Allgäu Nachrichten

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

Category:Oberamt Heidelberg

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

    these data belong to wikidata, not commons cat trees.

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

  2. creating loops and overly broad cat trees and messing up User:OgreBot/gallery, as well as other tools dependent on a logical cat tree. RoyZuo (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Category:Districts of historical states in Germany
this entire new cat tree is problematic.--RoyZuo (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. This category is not helpful at all for the named reasons. The category Category:Oberamt Heidelberg, if at all, should contain only images of documents or artifacts directly related to this historical administrative unit, but not present-day localities. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Symbols of Lai Chau

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

Category:Wrigley Hall

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

Category:Recueil. "Carine" de Fernand Crommelynck - btv1b10527166m

Legal considerations for the publication and sharing of a scrapbook collection Upon examination, this collection appears to be a scrapbook or souvenir album containing various documents, such as photographs, theatre programmes, and press reviews. These materials may involve multiple distinct authors, some of whom are not yet in the public domain in France. Moreover, many works were published after 1930. Consequently, their legal status, particularly regarding copyright, makes unrestricted distribution incompatible without a thorough verification of the necessary permissions. Trauenbaum (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nude teenagers

Some subcategories are concerning, and for once, it’s the male category tree that’s the problem.

We have subcategories like Nude adolescent boys with flaccid penis and Nude standing adolescent boys with unshaved genitalia. These categories draw attention to these things when they appear incidentally in more general images. If someone uploaded images focusing on these things, it wouldn’t be long before Wikimedia’s legal team was investigating them. Also notice that there is no category called Nude adolescent boys with erect penis, presumably for similar reasons.

Surprisingly, one of the images in question is not an old artwork, but a recent image of real people: World Naked Bike Ride June 9, 2012 (7356796752).jpg. Brianjd (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  • re: "naked bike ride" - do you mean the short guy, partly cut off on the far left of the photo? FIRST - the whole image clearly falls under NUDISM not sexuality. & SECOND - it is pretty hard to pin down the age of said person cut off on the far left. he is a short male human, slightly post adolescent or at least very much post-pubescent, & you can only see part of his face under a bike helmet (with sunglare/shadowing), a little bit of one shoulder & upper arm, & some frontal parts of his body between waist & knees. he could be anything from about 16-25 or so; his leg hair seems fully grown in & he might have shave his stomach/chest area. NOTHING specifies his age. you could categorise him as an "age-indefinite twink". xD Lx 121 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
for that matter - are minors even ALLOWED to participate in this particular event? serious question, i genuinely have no idea what the rules are for the sfwnbr. san francisco might be fairly open, california too, but u.s. federal law would also apply here, & the organisers would be fully aware of that. Lx 121 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I would strongly expect that minors are not allowed to be naked in that event, or any organized urban nudist event. I know that for the Solstice Cyclists in Seattle, they allow underage people to ride along if they are with a parent or guardian, but they are required to be clothed. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I put the discussion at this level (instead of, for example, Nude adolescent boys) because these problems could just as well affect the female category tree; it just so happens that the current problems lie in the male category tree. Brianjd (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too quick to jump to those conclusions. First, I should have dealt with the terminology. A ‘teenager’, strictly speaking, could be up to 19 years old. But the navigation box suggests that here, a ‘teenager’ is a ‘child’ and must be under 18 years old. This definition is supposedly taken from the English Wikipedia article Development of the human body, which does not seem to define (or even use) that term.
That’s given me so much of a headache that I can’t even think about what ‘adolescent’ might mean. Brianjd (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I started a more general discussion at Template talk:Category navigation/people/sidenote#Proper citation needed. Brianjd (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
First: "teenager" is an awkward English-ism. The term is an artifact of the English number system, and doesn't necessarily make sense in other languages. While I recognize that this was decided upon at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Humans by stage of development, it might be worth reconsidering.
But on to the real issue. Categories should not be used to call attention to aspects of images which it would be inappropriate to use the image to illustrate. (For instance, we don't use categories to point out de minimis copyrighted elements which appear in photos.) Using categories to point out that a minor's genitals are visible in a photo, and to describe their precise condition, is indefensible. If there are structural reasons why these categories are being created (e.g. templates which require fields to be filled out or metacategories which recommend diffusal), changes need to be made such that this is no longer the case.
Omphalographer (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: This is well put. Do we have a policy somewhere that communicates Categories should not be used to call attention to aspects of images which it would be inappropriate to use the image to illustrate. (For instance, we don't use categories to point out de minimis copyrighted elements which appear in photos.) ? — Rhododendrites talk |  03:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
You know, I'm not sure. Commons policy documents seem a little thin on the matter - Commons:Categories has a lot to say about how categories should be named and organized, but relatively little on what files belong in them. Perhaps this needs to be rectified. Omphalographer (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer and Rhododendrites: A later comment by Sbb1413 points to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, which covers some of those structural issues; I have commented there.
I’d also like to see more discussion on policy implications. Brianjd (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I started Commons talk:Categories#Proposed prohibition on using categories to call attention to certain elements. Brianjd (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: User:Joshbaumgartner moved this category from "Nude adolescents" to "Nude teenagers" in 2023. (So I have pinged him.) - dcljr (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @TwoWings, Dronebogus, Trade, Rhododendrites, Infrogmation as users previously involved in nudity-related discussions. Brianjd (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I don’t get what the point of this discussion is. The objection is seemingly to two categories that have no realistic use. The categories could be nominated individually or even just emptied and left to auto-deletion. I can’t offer any further advice on such vague-wave complaints. Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Dronebogus: This isn’t a mere disagreement about whether something is notable. This issue is about as serious as it gets and calls for a high-level systemic response. It is not good enough to play ‘whack-a-mole’ with categories that will surely be re-created at some point. (Edit: It’s not just those two categories. Those two categories are particularly damning, but the entire category tree is questionable to some extent. It needs to be discussed.) Brianjd (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    What exactly is the problem? The vast majority of the category tree is, based on a quick skimming, not objectionable. Unless you object to “nude adolescent boys sitting” “kneeling” or “holding hands”, I see only the aforementioned categories and nothing more. There is obviously no child pornography here, just historical artwork/photography and a single known case of non-sexual nudism. Dronebogus (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Dronebogus: If it’s so obvious that it’s not child pornography, why are there no modern images (except for that one I mentioned, where the adolescent is half-hidden off to the side of the group)? Brianjd (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    I don’t know what point you’re making. My point was that there is no child porn. Dronebogus (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Dronebogus: I’ll make my point more explicit then.
    If someone uploaded a modern image like the historical ones you refer to, then I am fairly confident that it would be speedily deleted, it would be referred to Wikimedia’s legal team, the uploader’s account would be locked, and people would seriously consider whether to refer the matter to law enforcement (depending on the exact nature of the image).
    It is not at all clear why historical images, or the categories under discussion here, are treated differently. Brianjd (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0179.jpg is an image by famous photographer Wilhelm von Gloeden that was uploaded in 2012 by a respected user who now has almost half a million edits. It has never been nominated for deletion or reported to law enforcement and User:G.dallorto is not blocked. If you think those things should happen then feel free to try, but nobody in over 10 years seemed to think so. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for mentioning me. It was not me who created that category. In fact, someone I do not know is adding categories such a "women with shaved genitalia" or "women with furs" or "boys with flaccid penis" to the nude photographs by Wilhelm von Gloeden, whose catalogue I am creating on Commons. Now, if the objection is about the "teenager" part, I agree that this is but an English-language construct, since it also involves 18 and 19 old adult men and women. So we can for instance solve the question by using a different word. Done. However, if the matter is about focusing on sexual details, I must admit I was rather annoyed from these categories, because I cannot see how do they contribute to Wikimedia's project, and I would actually like to get rid of them ALL (including the "women with furs"). However, I never touched them because of Wikipedia's principle: "always assume good faith".
    Incidentally, Gloeden was tried thrice for alleged "pornography", and he was acquitted all three times, the last one by the Fascist Regime, in 1943. So, we can prove it was never considered "porn", not even by fascists! Of course, everybody is entitled to despise his work as "pornographic", just as Facebook deleted for "nudity" the crucifixion that an Italian Catholic group had been posting with their Easter reflections (it was hilarious, actually). But this is a slippery slope. We know it ends by censoring Michelangelo's nudes and Crucifixes because, well, it did happen a lot already. So we better not start doing it. Thank you. User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    @G.dallorto: The relevant guideline is Commons’ Commons:Assume good faith, but that does not mean that you avoid discussing difficult subjects with users you disagree with. The problematic categorization seems to be largely due to Dispe, who had already been notified of this discussion; I have just written a more specific message on their talk page inviting them to tell us their side of the story.
    What I said above applies to the problematic male categories already discussed here. Regarding the female categories, PetScan says that no Gloeden files are categorized as ‘women with shaved genitalia’ and I cannot find this Women with fur category at all, so I am not sure what you are referring to there. Brianjd (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
    Dispe has replied below. Pinging @G.dallorto. Brianjd (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
@Brianjd, Joshbaumgartner, Omphalographer, TwoWings, Dronebogus, Trade, Rhododendrites, and Infrogmation: Actually, the matter is whether or not the subject is pornography. If an adolescent boy aged 13-18 uploads a modern photo of his penis for educational purposes, that's not a porn. I could do so if I were underage (like my pre-pandemic years in Commons), but I'm now legally an adult. I think some people can't make a distinction between nudity and pornography. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Intent is mostly (though not completely) irrelevant to the legal competence of the individual, the legality of the material, and Commons policy. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
A photo by Wilhelm von Gloeden (1856-1931) depicting two nude young males holding hands, apparently acceptable only because it is old.
Sbb1413’s argument seems compelling:
  • I think some people can't make a distinction between nudity and pornography. People often say that sort of thing in relation to media depicting adults, especially when applying a core principle of Commons, Commons is not censored.
  • If an adolescent boy aged 13-18 uploads a modern photo of his penis for educational purposes, that's not a porn. This seems like a natural extension of using images of toddlers’ penises for medical purposes, as described in an article by The Guardian and the New York Times article they cite. These articles demonstrate the dangers of carelessly making up rules about media depicting nude minors. For what it’s worth, the New York Times article warns that creating such media, even for medical purposes, could be a form of grooming, but doesn’t explain why it’s any worse than observing a minor’s genitals directly.
But Rhododendrites’ reply seems more consistent with actual Commons practice, which seems to be to prohibit all modern media that focusses on nude minors (even if it does not focus on any particular body part). I say ‘practice’ instead of ‘policy’ because, as far as I know, Commons does not have a relevant policy.
The Wikimedia Foundation does have a relevant policy, the Wikimedia Foundation Combating Online Child Exploitation Policy. That policy does seem to make a distinction between nudity and sexualization. For example, it says:
Prohibited content includes (but is not limited to) photographs, drawings, renderings, or videos of minors depicting: Nude body with a focus on genital areas, where that image has no obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose (see below for more details) …
That implies that even media focussing on nude minors’ genitals may be acceptable, provided it has obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose (whatever that means). Despite this, as far as I know, Commons has no such media, not even historical media. Brianjd (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Brianjd: Thank you for inputs. I'm aware of such prohibitions, and I had once given insights at the CFD on Category:People performing sexual activity regarding this. That said, I still believe Commons should have media related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas" with "obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose". So, such media can be speedily deleted but should be undeleted if someone wants to keep the image and they can demonstrate the obvious educational value aligned with our purpose. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: Commons already has such media, but of adults (and that is not controversial, so I am not sure why you are discussing it here). Are you saying that Commons should have such media of minors too?
Your suggestion that such media can be speedily deleted but should be undeleted if someone wants to keep the image and they can demonstrate the obvious educational value aligned with our purpose is a contradiction: if the educational value is obvious, then the media should not be eligible for speedy deletion. Brianjd (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Brianjd: I think I was typing quickly in phone, as I was away home. Anyway, by "such media" I meant any media related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas" unless someone can point to their "obvious educational value[s] aligned with the projects' purpose". Since there are no media of minors related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas" with "obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose", I think we can speedily delete other minor media related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas". Regarding Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0179.jpg, this image is acceptable probably because the exact ages of the male humans depicted are not certain, which makes it hard to determine whether or not the male humans depicted are minors. It is also likely that the male humans are young adults rather than minors. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@G.dallorto: Can you comment on the ages of the subjects of the Wilhelm von Gloeden photos? Brianjd (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Why are we specifically attacking teenage nudity? No reasonable person would object to File:Naked child walking beach.jpg even though by the traditional chain of logic it should be more offensive because the subject is younger. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@Dronebogus: This section of the discussion is really about adolescents vs adults, not adolescents vs young children.
To respond to your question: It could be less offensive because the association between nudity and sex is weaker (or perhaps non-existent in the case of mere nudity without focus on the genitals) for younger children. But I agree that this discussion really should cover all minors, and most of the comments here do indeed refer to minors. Brianjd (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Also, in case if Category:Nude children and its subcats (excluding topless categories) get empty, the Category:Nude people category would get redirected to Category:Nude adult humans, as the only nude images remaining that are not topless would be the adult ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I think for modern images of nude minors revealing their genitalia, the genitalia can be censored with Gaussian blur or similar. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: That may be done in certain contexts to protect the viewer (in which case it should be done consistently, regardless of age), but there is absolutely no reason to do that in the original files. As stated above, Commons is not censored. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kernig's sign cerebrospinal meningitis.jpg (recent DR for an old image) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varicela.jpg (older DR for a newer image). And, of course, en:Nevermind#Artwork. Brianjd (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I tried to find other categories of concern here. The ones I know about are Adolescent girls wearing lingerie (whose only contents are Adolescent girls wearing brassieres, whose only contents are two photos of girls with their brassieres fully covered and barely visible through their outer clothing) and Upskirt (per Special:Diff/602372081).
On a related note, many nude children subcategories are empty, and their existence might encourage users to find or create media to fill them. In other situations, that would be a good thing; in this situation, it might not be. It looks like these categories were created by Joshbaumgartner, who has already been pinged above. Brianjd (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I now think nude children (i.e. people below the majority age) categories are not problematic as long as they are not related to genitalia, as the WMF policy does not allow having explicit images of underage genitalia unless there are obvious educational values. Since (I think) external genitalia are at the bottom, the real problem lies at Category:Bottomless children. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Historically and in many non-western cultures, children running around naked was/is not seen as problematic. Even today more liberal western societies wouldn’t object to nude children in a non-sexual context. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
See also: Category:Child sexuality and Category:Underage sexuality. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
The only contents of Child sexuality are the subcategory Child sexual abuse. One parent category is Children's culture. I think that’s saying that child sexual abuse is an aspect of children’s culture. No, that can’t be right.
Meanwhile, the child sexuality infobox image, Martin Van Maele - La Grande Danse macabre des vifs - 21.jpg, is nowhere to be found. It is under Erotic activities involving children and Masturbation games, even though my understanding is that young children examining children’s genitals is not sexual. Brianjd (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment on only one aspect of this: in this context, teenagers is an ill-chosen word, especially because in most countries it covers both sides of the age of consent (making it a very charged word in this context), but also because it is a term rooted in a particular aspect of 20th- and 21st-century culture. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I also think "teenager" is not an appropriate term for adolescents, because (1) it is not consistent with subcategories like Category:Adolescent boys and Category:Adolescent girls and (2) "teenager" should cover the ages 18 and 19, which "adolescent" does not always cover (for instance, I'm legally an adult but literally a teenager). Instead, I would prefer renaming the whole teenager category tree to Category:Adolescents. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)


I am replying here to these messages. The category "Category:Male humans with double biceps" (and the subcategories "Male humans with double biceps," "Adolescent boys with double biceps," "Topless adolescent boys with double biceps," "Men with double biceps," "Topless men with double biceps") was created to separate and better subcategorize photos from the main category "Category:Double biceps."The same approach was taken for "arms spread" (and "Category:Male humans with arms spread" -> Nude or partially nude male humans with arms spread, -> Nude male humans with arms spread, -> Nude adolescent boys with arms spread -> Nude men with arms spread) "Category:Nude male humans kneeling" and therefore also for "Nude adolescent boys with flaccid penis" and "Nude standing adolescent boys with unshaved genitalia". The creation of these categories is part of a broader effort to subcategorize images "by posture" or "by activity" etc. based on gender and stages of human life. If these specific categories are not appreciated or considered inappropriate, they can certainly be deleted without any issue.--Dispe/Avversario (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS AGRUEMENT AGAIN?' - ALL of these points have been argued & re-argued on commons, wikipedia, wikimedia X-times over.

FIRST, what idiot *editors* changed "adolescent" to "teenager"? - the purpose of the categorisation is foremost BIOLOGICAL (& anthopological) , about stages of human development. & this is not "simple english wikimedia commons".

SECOND, wmc established the working rules for acceptable content of this type LONG AGO. & we have argued & re-argued it again, & again, & again.... so why are we doing this again?

THIRD commons has 115,045,809 files AND COUNTING. there is no such thing as "over categorisation". ANYTHING that helps sort out this pile into FINDABLE groupings IS USEFUL especially for end-users. OBVIOUS uses here would include art & human anatomy/biology.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)


  • apropos this -

PROPOSAL - change the category heading BACK to "Nude Adolescents", as per precision, accuracy, & best practices for biology/anatomy/stages of human development which are the main purpose of this set of categorisations.

adolescent & teenager are NOT precise synonyms; (human) adolescence describes a STAGE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. "Teenager" is a "cultural" term more than a biological one; & it is rather vague as well (are 10-11-12 year olds "teenagers"? are we going to make categories for "tweens"?).

ALSO not ALL teenagers are "minors"; what about 18-19 year olds? (as others have stated above) they ARE adults, & nude images of same would NOT be a "concern" on the cited reasons for starting this discussion in the first place...

"teenager" fails in multiple ways on ambiguity.

WMC POLICY on categorisation clearly states that clarity & disambiguation are the priorities. viz. - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle

this is not "Simple English Wikimedia Commons". There are alternate language settings for whichever language you prefer, & if you are going to work in english on wmc, then there is a "competence is required" expectation.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121: The ‘idiot’ you refer to was Joshbaumgartner; although I don’t agree with them on this point, they have done amazing work trying to clean up Commons categories, and personal attacks are not acceptable.
I am tempted to revert your edits here, where as well as casting personal attacks, you are using horrendous formatting to try to dominate the discussion. Brianjd (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • 1. i DID NOT name any users, but you just did. & i do not see much merit in this particular "cleaning up". what's next? renaming the other biology cats to "most common plant/animal name"?
  • 2. if you feel my writing style some violates policy, PLEASE refer me to the relevant wmc rule pages?
  • 3. if you do "disappear" my objections, i'll be the one reporting you, are per your comments on my talk page.
Lx 121 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Lx 121: It takes about 10 seconds to find that name in the category history. You had might as well have included the name here. But maybe it is better that I included the name, together with a more balanced comment than yours. Brianjd (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
This is not the ‘English Wikimedia Commons’ either. This is explicitly a multilingual project, and all users (including those not blessed with a native understanding of English) are welcome to comment on categories. Brianjd (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
'BUT - english IS the "root" language of wmc (with services & settings in other languages on offer"). that was literally decided when they created this place.
we operate core functions on wmc in english, THIS discussion is in english, & "competence is required". if you want a "simple english" version of wmc go create it.
OR if you want to go work on multi-lingual categorisation, go for it. BUT on here, right now, the core categorisation is in english BY COMMUNITY CONSENSUS. & we do not have a style rule to "dumb it down" (again if you WANT that to be a rule, go make that proposal & see how it debates out...). Lx 121 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Lx 121: Any consensus that emerges here, as the current consensus, is what we have to follow. If you think we should give greater consideration to some previous consensus, perhaps you are the one who needs to supply a link. Brianjd (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Lx 121, @Brianjd: Regardless of any insults that were thrown around, on the basis of the matter, I support the proposal to restore the Category:Nude adolescents category name. These categories have been under various discussions over recent years, and sometimes individual discussions are resolved, and in the effort to implement them we bump into other contradictory conclusions or other issues which prompt further discussion. It certainly can make some changes look idiotic in hindsight even if there appeared to be good reason for the change at the time. Besides, only an idiot wouldn't admit to being an idiot sometimes. Josh (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nipples through clothing

There was a previous discussion that didn’t really achieve anything.

Now, let’s sort out, once and for all, what this category is actually for. It currently has this nonsensical description:

Category for images of nipples visible through translucent/transparent clothing, or erect nipples through clothing. This can be considered a fetish or paraphilia

Let’s analyse that.

images

Not other types of media?

nipples visible through translucent/transparent clothing

No, that’s Nipples through transparent clothing (yes, there is an issue with translucent vs transparent, but that category already has its own discussion that should sort that out).

erect nipples

What does that even mean? The nipples are visible, or they are not. That’s all.

This can be considered a fetish or paraphilia

Anything can be considered sexual if you try hard enough, but there is nothing inherently sexual about nipples, as the anti-censorship people keep telling us.

To complicate matters, the Wikidata item pokies (Q11611844) also sexualizes this concept for no apparent reason, as well as including its own nonsensical statements. I have started a discussion there. Brianjd (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Other types of media: what would there be other than images, given that videos could be considered images? Audio files of people talking about them? Text that mentions them?
Erect nipples: whoever wrote this was probably thinking of cases where you can see that nipples are pushing on clothing, but the clothing is opaque and you can't actually see the nipples themselves. That should probably be a separate category, if we want such a category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I guess technically we should include 3D models, but I was mainly thinking of videos, which I would not consider ‘images’.
I think that if we maintain a category for translucent clothing, then we should also have one for opaque clothing. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The 2018 discussion mentioned a particular test case depicting a politician, file:Han Dong, MPP.jpg. I think this may be a useful for defining the cat, since it is clearly not sexualised but neither is the image really 'about' his nipples. Of course we do have categories for minor aspects of the media we maintain at Commons, but is this one of them? Some of the images are clearly meant to be sexual in nature (example: file:Bori (30933450311).jpg, file:man in a clear pvc dress.jpg...that last one makes 'through' quite literal); should this cat contain both? If not, what objective criterion would be used to distinguish? Arlo James Barnes 17:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:AI-generated gibberish

Suggest a rename to the current redirect of Category:AI-misgenerated text. Category contains both minor, correctable text errors ("Wikiıpedia") and complete nonsense ("Snap6iye Pacemiine"). Splitting the category would require some judgment calls to be made in the ambiguous middle ground, renaming it to the broader "misgenerated text" would encompass both ends of the spectrum. Belbury (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense and this is also using the standardized cat-naming-scheme. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Better keep the name Category:AI-generated gibberish, or delete the cat with all content. Out of scope anyway. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Most of the images in the category are in use somewhere, so are in scope. Belbury (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep the name unchanged: There’s merit in calling a spade a spade. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't seem accurate to categorise a single-error word like Wikiıpedia as gibberish. Belbury (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Newspaper extra

Seems to be the same as Category:Special edition (newspaper) Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly as you stated. But, there is one reminder.
(de:Extrablatt (Presse)) and (en:Newspaper extra) are, different link.
What is the best way... --Benzoyl (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gabrielli Palace (Piran)

Palača Gabrielli v Piranu nima lastne kategorije v Wikipodatkih Shabicht (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Shabicht: If you think it should have a Wikidata category entry, you can create one. Is there something else that needs to be done? -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Transgender non-binary women

"Non-binary women" is self-contradictory: "non-binary" means neither female nor male, but "women" means "adult female humans". Unless the people categorized here really identify themselves as both "non-binary" and "female", such self-contradictory categories will just confuse end users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-binary women don't necessarily experience womanhood and you're ignoring polysemy. Let me stupefy a little further:
This makes it clear how it's used. Rebecca Sugar is a nonbinary woman and she made a lot of fictional characters that are also both non-binary and female. The term is very consistent as it appears in several wikis: wikia:mogai-genders:Non-Binary Woman and https://mogai.miraheze.org/wiki/Non-Binary_Woman .
And why contradiction should matter if you validate multigenders or demigenders in general? LIrala (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Just move to Category:Non-binary people. This has grown inte a mess. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Main n-b category is well diffused. Being a non-binary woman or non-binary trans woman is a specific and consistent identity many people experience, such as J. E. Sumerau, Bryanna Nasck, and Jaloo. cat:transfeminine people already exists for those with similar identity as well. and Stu Rasmussen with the man counterpart. queercore genderqueer used to be a more encompassing umbrella than the given restricted definition of non-binary. but since those terms are merged nowadays into one thing, then we have to deal with people complaining and other people feeling uncomfortable and coining more labels to fit in. LIrala (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestions and comments above, this category looks like plain nonsense. If the person is non-binary, then is not a woman, by definition. Just move it to Category:Non-binary people. Darwin Ahoy! 03:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Early lives by individual

Another artefact from Allforrous. Although the subcats are useful, the main category is vaguely defined ("early lives" can mean either childhood or youth). Since Commons often discourages vaguely-defined categories, we should rename this category to something more descriptive, like Category:Childhood by person or Category:Youth by person. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  • I certainly don't like "early lives".
@Sbb1413: why would there by any value even to a clearer category like "childhood by individual"? I can't imagine someone coming down that branch of the category tree with any intent other than obsessive categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I see the point of categorizing images into categories like "childhood" or "youth", especially in cases where year categories are not sufficient (birth year not certain, or the lack of images that could suffice year categories). Otherwise, I think the standard year categories are fine. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Sbb1413: Year categories don't work for subjects like Zeus and Jesus, both of which are in this category. Similar ones are Category:Childhood of Virgin Mary, Category:Dionysos as a child, etc. Those childhood categories could just go under Category:Children somewhere -- maybe "Children by name"? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
    These all feel like exceptional cases. Some of them could benefit from bespoke categories (e.g. "Greek deities as children"), but I don't think they need to be made part of a single overarching category. Omphalographer (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete. This isn't a good fit. Commons categories for photos of individual people are typically subdivided by years (like Category:Bill Clinton in 1963), not by vaguely defined periods like "early life". It's not terribly clear to me how this category would be applied to those sorts of categories, or why it'd be useful to do so. (Going on a tagging spree adding many thousands of "PERSON in YEAR" categories to this category is simply out of the question.) Omphalographer (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete "Early life" is vague. It could mean childhood. It could mean the part of a person's life before they became important, which could include childhood and early adulthood. "Early life" works as a section in a Wikipedia article, but not as categories here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Weather and climate

A union category, can be upmerged to Category:Atmospheric phenomena. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a union category, and that those are problematic. I don't think all of the content would fit in that parent category, though. I think the best thing to do would be to split the category, although that might be difficult.
I also think it needs a different parent category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Less than 1-year-old humans

Category:Babies are often defined as humans aged below a year. Thus, the category is redundant to Category:Babies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The established definitions used extensively on Commons are quote
"Babies (birth to 24 months)
Boys (2–13 years [puberty])
Adolescent boys (13–17 years)
Men (18+ years)
Young men (18–39 years)
Middle-aged men (40–59 years)
Old men (60+ years)
Definitions come from, but are slightly modified from, the Physical stages of human life as found at Wikipedia:Human development (biology)." Headlock0225 (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The quoted definitions are mostly obsolete thanks to several recent CFDs, and the fact that the cited Wikipedia article no longer mentions these age ranges (the age ranges were removed more than 16 years ago). The new definitions are outlined at {{Human stages of development}}, and while I've not explicitly mentioned the age range of babies, the WIkipedia article Infant mentions that the terms "infant" and "baby" usually refer to a human aged below a year. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand your argument. On one hand you seem to be arguing that the definition of a Baby or Infant does not have precise chronological age. That seems to be what the Wikipedia article on Infant is saying. Then you propose that Babies are always and only below the age of 1 year so the Categor:Less than 1-year-old humans is redundant. The Wikipedia article on Infants says that the term Infant is “typically applied to very young children under one year of age; however, definitions may vary and may include children up to two years of age” This to me makes perfect sense. Would you argue, for example, that this File:Physical exam of child with stethoscope on chest.jpeg is not a baby or that this File:Bayi perempuan berusia 1 tahun.jpg is not a baby or this File:Female child nineteen months old.jpg?? Headlock0225 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Further thoughts. For most images of babies, the age is not identified. They are clearly Babies but could be, for example 10 months, 11 months 12 months or 14 months. Category:Less than 1-year-old humans is for images of Babies where the age is known. It fills in an obvious gape in the age ranges in Category:People by chronological age Headlock0225 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution

FOP in Bangladesh was revoked since September 2023, all images under this category are of 2D art created afterwards and are not allowed on Commons. See this discussion Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bodhisattwa:  Delete all per nom. I don't see any rationale in support of keeping reproductions of modern 2D art in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
@Bodhisattwa: kindly enumerate all file names here? So that files can easily be undeleted/restored (without the admins having to browse through deletion logs) if the artwork copyrights expire many decades from now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413 and JWilz12345: , there are 1620 files according to this Petscan query. They are listed here -
Click "Expand" to see list
  1. File:ফ্যাসিবাদী দুঃশাসন রুখে দাঁড়ান- সমাজতান্ত্রিক ছাত্র ফ্রন্ট.jpg
  2. File:Abu Sayeed Death (2).png
  3. File:Abu Sayeed Death (1).png
  4. File:Abu Sayeed Death.png
  5. File:Students Attacked in 2024 Bangladesh Quota Reform Movement.png
  6. File:Students Attacked in 2024 Bangladesh Quota Reform Movement (2).png
  7. File:Students Attacked in 2024 Bangladesh Quota Reform Movement (3).png
  8. File:Female student injured on 15th July.png
  9. File:Female student injured on 15th July (1).png
  10. File:Abu Sayed holding flag (1).png
  11. File:Abu Sayed holding flag.png
  12. File:বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলন চিত্রলেখা কর্মসূচি.jpg
  13. File:বাংলাদেশ দ্বিতীয়বার স্বাধীন.jpg
  14. File:Tongi graffiti 3.jpg
  15. File:Tongi graffiti 2.jpg
  16. File:Tongi graffiti 5.jpg
  17. File:Tongi graffiti 6.jpg
  18. File:Graffiti painted after the July revolution 2024 in Bangladesh 01.jpg
  19. File:Graffiti painted after the July revolution 2024 in Bangladesh 02.jpg
  20. File:Graffiti of Bangladesh's Gen Z Revolution by Class 1 student.jpg
  21. File:Graffiti of Bangladesh's Gen Z Revolution 01.jpg
  22. File:Graffiti of Bangladesh's Gen Z Revolution 02.jpg
  23. File:Tongi graffiti 10.jpg
  24. File:Tongi graffiti 9.jpg
  25. File:Tongi graffiti 11.jpg
  26. File:Tongi graffiti 13.jpg
  27. File:Tongi graffiti 12.jpg
  28. File:Tongi graffiti 14.jpg
  29. File:Tongi graffiti 11 (croped).jpg
  30. File:Graffiti Depicting Gen Z Revolution on Shahid Saifuddin Khaled Road, Chattogram.jpg
  31. File:Graffiti Depicting Gen Z Revolution at Kazir Dewri Circle.jpg
  32. File:Graffiti at University of Rajshahi.jpg
  33. File:বাংলার মানুষ ক্ষেপে গেলে। দমায় রাখতে পারবে না দেয়াল গ্রাফিতি ১.jpg
  34. File:বাংলার মানুষ ক্ষেপে গেলে। দমায় রাখতে পারবে না দেয়াল গ্রাফিতি.jpg
  35. File:তেহ দেয়াল গ্রাফিতি.jpg
  36. File:July Movement graffiti - Freedom 01.jpg
  37. File:July Movement graffiti - হোক প্রতিবাদ.jpg
  38. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 01.jpg
  39. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 02.jpg
  40. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 04.jpg
  41. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 05.jpg
  42. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 06.jpg
  43. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 07.jpg
  44. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 08.jpg
  45. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 09.jpg
  46. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 10.jpg
  47. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 11.jpg
  48. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 12.jpg
  49. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 14.jpg
  50. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 13.jpg
  51. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 16.jpg
  52. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 15.jpg
  53. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 17.jpg
  54. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 18.jpg
  55. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 20.jpg
  56. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 19.jpg
  57. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 21.jpg
  58. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 22.jpg
  59. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 23.jpg
  60. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 25.jpg
  61. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 26.jpg
  62. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 24.jpg
  63. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 27.jpg
  64. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 29.jpg
  65. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 31.jpg
  66. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 30.jpg
  67. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 32.jpg
  68. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 33.jpg
  69. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 34.jpg
  70. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 35.jpg
  71. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 37.jpg
  72. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 36.jpg
  73. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 38.jpg
  74. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 39.jpg
  75. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 40.jpg
  76. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 41.jpg
  77. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 43.jpg
  78. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 42.jpg
  79. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 44.jpg
  80. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 47.jpg
  81. File:Wikimedian Capturing Graffiti in Dhaka.jpg
  82. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 46.jpg
  83. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 49.jpg
  84. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 50.jpg
  85. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 51.jpg
  86. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 52.jpg
  87. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 53.jpg
  88. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 54.jpg
  89. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 55.jpg
  90. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 56.jpg
  91. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 57.jpg
  92. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 58.jpg
  93. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 59.jpg
  94. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 60.jpg
  95. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 61.jpg
  96. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 63.jpg
  97. File:DU Central Library.jpg
  98. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 65.jpg
  99. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 66.jpg
  100. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 68.jpg
  101. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 67.jpg
  102. File:IBA Building Gate, Dhaka University.jpg
  103. File:মধুসূদন দে স্মৃতি ভাস্কর্য.jpg
  104. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 71.jpg
  105. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 72.jpg
  106. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 75.jpg
  107. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 76.jpg
  108. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 77.jpg
  109. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 78.jpg
  110. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 79.jpg
  111. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 81.jpg
  112. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 80.jpg
  113. File:Chittagong Hill Tracts Complex.jpg
  114. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 82.jpg
  115. File:Wikimedians Capturing Graffiti in Dhaka.jpg
  116. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 85.jpg
  117. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 86.jpg
  118. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 87.jpg
  119. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 88.jpg
  120. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 89.jpg
  121. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 90.jpg
  122. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 91.jpg
  123. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 92.jpg
  124. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 93.jpg
  125. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 94.jpg
  126. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 95.jpg
  127. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 96.jpg
  128. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 97.jpg
  129. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 98.jpg
  130. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 99.jpg
  131. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 100.jpg
  132. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 101.jpg
  133. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 102.jpg
  134. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 103.jpg
  135. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 104.jpg
  136. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 105.jpg
  137. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 107.jpg
  138. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 108.jpg
  139. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 109.jpg
  140. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 110.jpg
  141. File:Central Shaheed Minar in Dhaka 02.jpg
  142. File:Central Shaheed Minar in Dhaka 01.jpg
  143. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 115.jpg
  144. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 116.jpg
  145. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 117.jpg
  146. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 118.jpg
  147. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 120.jpg
  148. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 119.jpg
  149. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 121.jpg
  150. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 123.jpg
  151. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 122.jpg
  152. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 124.jpg
  153. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 125.jpg
  154. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 126.jpg
  155. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 127.jpg
  156. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 62.jpg
  157. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Dhaka 106.jpg
  158. File:July Revolution 24 graffiti at Dhaka 02.jpg
  159. File:July Revolution 24 graffiti at Dhaka 03.jpg
  160. File:July Revolution 24 graffiti at Dhaka 01.jpg
  161. File:July Chatro Jonota Revolution 2024 graffiti at Dhaka 03.jpg
  162. File:July Chatro Jonota Revolution 2024 graffiti at Dhaka 01.jpg
  163. File:July Chatro Jonota Revolution 2024 graffiti at Dhaka 02.jpg
  164. File:July Chatro Jonota Revolution 2024 graffiti at Dhaka 04.jpg
  165. File:July Chatro Jonota Revolution 2024 graffiti at Dhaka 05.jpg
  166. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 01.jpg
  167. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 03.jpg
  168. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 02.jpg
  169. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 06.jpg
  170. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 04.jpg
  171. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 05.jpg
  172. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 07.jpg
  173. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 08.jpg
  174. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 09.jpg
  175. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 10.jpg
  176. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 11.jpg
  177. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 12.jpg
  178. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 13.jpg
  179. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 15.jpg
  180. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 14.jpg
  181. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 16.jpg
  182. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 17.jpg
  183. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 18.jpg
  184. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 19.jpg
  185. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 20.jpg
  186. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 21.jpg
  187. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 22.jpg
  188. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 24.jpg
  189. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 23.jpg
  190. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 25.jpg
  191. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 26.jpg
  192. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 27.jpg
  193. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 28.jpg
  194. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 29.jpg
  195. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 30.jpg
  196. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 31.jpg
  197. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 32.jpg
  198. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 33.jpg
  199. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 34.jpg
  200. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 35.jpg
  201. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 36.jpg
  202. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 38.jpg
  203. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 37.jpg
  204. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 39.jpg
  205. File:আগস্ট বিপ্লব ফটোওয়াক 40.jpg
  206. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 01.jpg
  207. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 02.jpg
  208. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 03.jpg
  209. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 06.jpg
  210. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 05.jpg
  211. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 04.jpg
  212. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 07.jpg
  213. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 09.jpg
  214. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 08.jpg
  215. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 10.jpg
  216. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 11.jpg
  217. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 12.jpg
  218. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 13.jpg
  219. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 14.jpg
  220. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 15.jpg
  221. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 16.jpg
  222. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 17.jpg
  223. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 18.jpg
  224. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 19.jpg
  225. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 20.jpg
  226. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 21.jpg
  227. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 22.jpg
  228. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 23.jpg
  229. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 24.jpg
  230. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 25.jpg
  231. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 26.jpg
  232. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 27.jpg
  233. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 28.jpg
  234. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 29.jpg
  235. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 30.jpg
  236. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 31.jpg
  237. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 32.jpg
  238. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 33.jpg
  239. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 34.jpg
  240. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 36.jpg
  241. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 35.jpg
  242. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 37.jpg
  243. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 38.jpg
  244. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 39.jpg
  245. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 40.jpg
  246. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 41.jpg
  247. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 42.jpg
  248. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 43.jpg
  249. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 44.jpg
  250. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 46.jpg
  251. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 45.jpg
  252. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 47.jpg
  253. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 48.jpg
  254. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 49.jpg
  255. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 50.jpg
  256. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 51.jpg
  257. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 52.jpg
  258. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 54.jpg
  259. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 53.jpg
  260. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 55.jpg
  261. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 56.jpg
  262. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 57.jpg
  263. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 58.jpg
  264. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 59.jpg
  265. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 60.jpg
  266. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 61.jpg
  267. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 62.jpg
  268. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 63.jpg
  269. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 64.jpg
  270. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 65.jpg
  271. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 66.jpg
  272. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 67.jpg
  273. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 68.jpg
  274. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 69.jpg
  275. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 70.jpg
  276. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 71.jpg
  277. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 72.jpg
  278. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 73.jpg
  279. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 74.jpg
  280. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 75.jpg
  281. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 76.jpg
  282. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 77.jpg
  283. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 78.jpg
  284. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 79.jpg
  285. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 80.jpg
  286. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 81.jpg
  287. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 82.jpg
  288. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 83.jpg
  289. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 84.jpg
  290. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 85.jpg
  291. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 86.jpg
  292. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 87.jpg
  293. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 88.jpg
  294. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 89.jpg
  295. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 90.jpg
  296. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 91.jpg
  297. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 92.jpg
  298. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 93.jpg
  299. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 94.jpg
  300. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 95.jpg
  301. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 96.jpg
  302. File:Graffiti painted on Dhaka University's TSC building.jpg
  303. File:Graffiti painted on Dhaka University's TSC building 02.jpg
  304. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 99.jpg
  305. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 100.jpg
  306. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 101.jpg
  307. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 102.jpg
  308. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 103.jpg
  309. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 104.jpg
  310. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 105.jpg
  311. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 106.jpg
  312. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 107.jpg
  313. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 108.jpg
  314. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 109.jpg
  315. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 110.jpg
  316. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 111.jpg
  317. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 112.jpg
  318. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 113.jpg
  319. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 114.jpg
  320. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 115.jpg
  321. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 116.jpg
  322. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 117.jpg
  323. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 118.jpg
  324. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 119.jpg
  325. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 120.jpg
  326. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 121.jpg
  327. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 122.jpg
  328. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 123.jpg
  329. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 124.jpg
  330. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 125.jpg
  331. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 126.jpg
  332. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 127.jpg
  333. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 128.jpg
  334. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 129.jpg
  335. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 130.jpg
  336. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 131.jpg
  337. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 132.jpg
  338. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 133.jpg
  339. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 134.jpg
  340. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 135.jpg
  341. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 137.jpg
  342. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 138.jpg
  343. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 139.jpg
  344. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 140.jpg
  345. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 141.jpg
  346. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 142.jpg
  347. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 143.jpg
  348. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 144.jpg
  349. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 145.jpg
  350. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 146.jpg
  351. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 147.jpg
  352. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 148.jpg
  353. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 150.jpg
  354. File:A homeless man in Dhaka University area sleeps on the street.jpg
  355. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 152.jpg
  356. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 153.jpg
  357. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 154.jpg
  358. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 156.jpg
  359. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 157.jpg
  360. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 158.jpg
  361. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 159.jpg
  362. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 160.jpg
  363. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 161.jpg
  364. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 162.jpg
  365. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 163.jpg
  366. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 164.jpg
  367. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 165.jpg
  368. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 166.jpg
  369. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 167.jpg
  370. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 168.jpg
  371. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 169.jpg
  372. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 170.jpg
  373. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 171.jpg
  374. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 172.jpg
  375. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 173.jpg
  376. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 174.jpg
  377. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 175.jpg
  378. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 176.jpg
  379. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 177.jpg
  380. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 178.jpg
  381. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 179.jpg
  382. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 180.jpg
  383. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 181.jpg
  384. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 182.jpg
  385. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 183.jpg
  386. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 184.jpg
  387. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 185.jpg
  388. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 186.jpg
  389. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 187.jpg
  390. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 188.jpg
  391. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 189.jpg
  392. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 190.jpg
  393. File:Graffiti in remembrance of the July Movement 149.jpg
  394. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 03.jpg
  395. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 02.jpg
  396. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 01.jpg
  397. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 04.jpg
  398. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 05.jpg
  399. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 06.jpg
  400. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 08.jpg
  401. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 09.jpg
  402. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 07.jpg
  403. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 10.jpg
  404. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 11.jpg
  405. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 12.jpg
  406. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 13.jpg
  407. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 15.jpg
  408. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 14.jpg
  409. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 18.jpg
  410. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 17.jpg
  411. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 16.jpg
  412. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 20.jpg
  413. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 19.jpg
  414. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 21.jpg
  415. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 22.jpg
  416. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 23.jpg
  417. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 24.jpg
  418. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 25.jpg
  419. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 26.jpg
  420. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 27.jpg
  421. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 28.jpg
  422. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 29.jpg
  423. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 30.jpg
  424. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 31.jpg
  425. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 32.jpg
  426. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 33.jpg
  427. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 35.jpg
  428. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 34.jpg
  429. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 36.jpg
  430. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 37.jpg
  431. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 40.jpg
  432. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 41.jpg
  433. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 42.jpg
  434. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 43.jpg
  435. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 44.jpg
  436. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 45.jpg
  437. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 46.jpg
  438. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 47.jpg
  439. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 49.jpg
  440. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 48.jpg
  441. File:July Revolution graffiti at Dhaka city 50.jpg
  442. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 01.jpg
  443. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 02.jpg
  444. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 03.jpg
  445. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 04.jpg
  446. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 05.jpg
  447. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 06.jpg
  448. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 07.jpg
  449. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 09.jpg
  450. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 08.jpg
  451. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 10.jpg
  452. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 11.jpg
  453. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 12.jpg
  454. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 13.jpg
  455. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 14.jpg
  456. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 15.jpg
  457. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 16.jpg
  458. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 17.jpg
  459. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 18.jpg
  460. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 19.jpg
  461. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 20.jpg
  462. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 21.jpg
  463. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 22.jpg
  464. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 23.jpg
  465. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 24.jpg
  466. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 25.jpg
  467. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 26.jpg
  468. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 27.jpg
  469. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 28.jpg
  470. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 29.jpg
  471. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 31.jpg
  472. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 30.jpg
  473. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 33.jpg
  474. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 34.jpg
  475. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 32.jpg
  476. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 35.jpg
  477. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 36.jpg
  478. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 37.jpg
  479. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 38.jpg
  480. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 39.jpg
  481. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 40.jpg
  482. File:July Revolution of Students graffiti at Shahbag area 41.jpg
  483. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 01.jpg
  484. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 03.jpg
  485. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 02.jpg
  486. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 05.jpg
  487. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 06.jpg
  488. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 04.jpg
  489. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 07.jpg
  490. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 08.jpg
  491. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 09.jpg
  492. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 10.jpg
  493. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 11.jpg
  494. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 12.jpg
  495. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 13.jpg
  496. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 14.jpg
  497. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 15.jpg
  498. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 16.jpg
  499. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 18.jpg
  500. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 17.jpg
  501. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 19.jpg
  502. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 21.jpg
  503. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 22.jpg
  504. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 20.jpg
  505. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 23.jpg
  506. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 24.jpg
  507. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 25.jpg
  508. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 26.jpg
  509. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 27.jpg
  510. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 28.jpg
  511. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 29.jpg
  512. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 30.jpg
  513. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 31.jpg
  514. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 32.jpg
  515. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 35.jpg
  516. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 36.jpg
  517. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 37.jpg
  518. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 38.jpg
  519. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 39.jpg
  520. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 40.jpg
  521. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 41.jpg
  522. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 44.jpg
  523. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 42.jpg
  524. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 43.jpg
  525. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 45.jpg
  526. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 46.jpg
  527. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 47.jpg
  528. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 48.jpg
  529. File:July Revolution 2024 graffiti at Shahbag 49.jpg
  530. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 03.jpg
  531. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 01.jpg
  532. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 02.jpg
  533. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 05.jpg
  534. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 06.jpg
  535. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 07.jpg
  536. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 08.jpg
  537. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 09.jpg
  538. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 10.jpg
  539. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 11.jpg
  540. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 13.jpg
  541. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 14.jpg
  542. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 15.jpg
  543. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 16.jpg
  544. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 17.jpg
  545. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 18.jpg
  546. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 20.jpg
  547. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 12.jpg
  548. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 21.jpg
  549. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 22.jpg
  550. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 23.jpg
  551. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 24.jpg
  552. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 19.jpg
  553. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 25.jpg
  554. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 26.jpg
  555. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 28.jpg
  556. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 27.jpg
  557. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 29.jpg
  558. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 31.jpg
  559. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 30.jpg
  560. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 32.jpg
  561. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 34.jpg
  562. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 33.jpg
  563. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 35.jpg
  564. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 36.jpg
  565. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 37.jpg
  566. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 38.jpg
  567. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 39.jpg
  568. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 40.jpg
  569. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 42.jpg
  570. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 43.jpg
  571. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 41.jpg
  572. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 44.jpg
  573. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 45.jpg
  574. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 46.jpg
  575. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 48.jpg
  576. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 49.jpg
  577. File:July 2024 Revolution BD graffiti 50.jpg
  578. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 01.jpg
  579. File:Gate of Jagannath Hall of Dhaka University.jpg
  580. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 03.jpg
  581. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 05.jpg
  582. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 06.jpg
  583. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 07.jpg
  584. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 09.jpg
  585. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 08.jpg
  586. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 10.jpg
  587. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 11.jpg
  588. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 12.jpg
  589. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 13.jpg
  590. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 15.jpg
  591. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 14.jpg
  592. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 16.jpg
  593. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 18.jpg
  594. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 17.jpg
  595. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 20.jpg
  596. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 19.jpg
  597. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 21.jpg
  598. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 22.jpg
  599. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 23.jpg
  600. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 24.jpg
  601. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 25.jpg
  602. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 26.jpg
  603. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 27.jpg
  604. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 28.jpg
  605. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 29.jpg
  606. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 30.jpg
  607. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 32.jpg
  608. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 33.jpg
  609. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 34.jpg
  610. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 35.jpg
  611. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 36.jpg
  612. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 38.jpg
  613. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 37.jpg
  614. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 39.jpg
  615. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 40.jpg
  616. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 41.jpg
  617. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 42.jpg
  618. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 43.jpg
  619. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 44.jpg
  620. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 45.jpg
  621. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 46.jpg
  622. File:July Revolution graffiti at Eden College area 47.jpg
  623. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 03.jpg
  624. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 02.jpg
  625. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 04.jpg
  626. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 05.jpg
  627. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 07.jpg
  628. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 08.jpg
  629. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 06.jpg
  630. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 09.jpg
  631. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 10.jpg
  632. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 11.jpg
  633. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 12.jpg
  634. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 13.jpg
  635. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 14.jpg
  636. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 15.jpg
  637. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 16.jpg
  638. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 17.jpg
  639. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 18.jpg
  640. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 19.jpg
  641. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 20.jpg
  642. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 21.jpg
  643. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 22.jpg
  644. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 23.jpg
  645. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 24.jpg
  646. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 25.jpg
  647. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 26.jpg
  648. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 28.jpg
  649. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 27.jpg
  650. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 29.jpg
  651. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 30.jpg
  652. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 31.jpg
  653. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 32.jpg
  654. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 33.jpg
  655. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 34.jpg
  656. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 35.jpg
  657. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 36.jpg
  658. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 37.jpg
  659. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 38.jpg
  660. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 39.jpg
  661. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 40.jpg
  662. File:July Revolution graffiti from Eden Mohila College wall 41.jpg
  663. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 01.jpg
  664. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 03.jpg
  665. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 02.jpg
  666. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 04.jpg
  667. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 05.jpg
  668. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 06.jpg
  669. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 07.jpg
  670. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 01.jpg
  671. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 03.jpg
  672. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 02.jpg
  673. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 04.jpg
  674. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 05.jpg
  675. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 06.jpg
  676. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 07.jpg
  677. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 09.jpg
  678. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 08.jpg
  679. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 10.jpg
  680. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 11.jpg
  681. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 12.jpg
  682. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 14.jpg
  683. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 13.jpg
  684. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 15.jpg
  685. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 16.jpg
  686. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 17.jpg
  687. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 18.jpg
  688. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 19.jpg
  689. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 21.jpg
  690. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 20.jpg
  691. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 22.jpg
  692. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 24.jpg
  693. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি চিত্র 23.jpg
  694. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 02.jpg
  695. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 03.jpg
  696. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 04.jpg
  697. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 06.jpg
  698. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 07.jpg
  699. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 08.jpg
  700. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 09.jpg
  701. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 10.jpg
  702. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 11.jpg
  703. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 12.jpg
  704. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 13.jpg
  705. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 14.jpg
  706. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 15.jpg
  707. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 16.jpg
  708. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 17.jpg
  709. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 18.jpg
  710. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 19.jpg
  711. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 20.jpg
  712. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 21.jpg
  713. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 22.jpg
  714. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 23.jpg
  715. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 24.jpg
  716. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 25.jpg
  717. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 01.jpg
  718. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 05.jpg
  719. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 26.jpg
  720. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 27.jpg
  721. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 28.jpg
  722. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 29.jpg
  723. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 30.jpg
  724. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 31.jpg
  725. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 32.jpg
  726. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 33.jpg
  727. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 34.jpg
  728. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 35.jpg
  729. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 36.jpg
  730. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 37.jpg
  731. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 38.jpg
  732. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 40.jpg
  733. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 41.jpg
  734. File:গ্রাফিতি আগস্ট বিপ্লবের 39.jpg
  735. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 01.jpg
  736. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 03.jpg
  737. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 02.jpg
  738. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 05.jpg
  739. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 04.jpg
  740. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 06.jpg
  741. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 07.jpg
  742. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 08.jpg
  743. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 09.jpg
  744. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 11.jpg
  745. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 10.jpg
  746. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 12.jpg
  747. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 14.jpg
  748. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 15.jpg
  749. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 16.jpg
  750. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 17.jpg
  751. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 19.jpg
  752. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 20.jpg
  753. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 21.jpg
  754. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 22.jpg
  755. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 24.jpg
  756. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 25.jpg
  757. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 13.jpg
  758. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 26.jpg
  759. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 27.jpg
  760. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 28.jpg
  761. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 18.jpg
  762. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 29.jpg
  763. File:২০২৪ এর বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 23.jpg
  764. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 01.jpg
  765. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 03.jpg
  766. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 02.jpg
  767. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 05.jpg
  768. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 06.jpg
  769. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 04.jpg
  770. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 07.jpg
  771. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 08.jpg
  772. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 09.jpg
  773. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 11.jpg
  774. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 10.jpg
  775. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 12.jpg
  776. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 15.jpg
  777. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 14.jpg
  778. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 16.jpg
  779. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 17.jpg
  780. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 18.jpg
  781. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 19.jpg
  782. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 20.jpg
  783. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 21.jpg
  784. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 22.jpg
  785. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 23.jpg
  786. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 24.jpg
  787. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 25.jpg
  788. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 26.jpg
  789. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 27.jpg
  790. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 28.jpg
  791. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 13.jpg
  792. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 29.jpg
  793. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 30.jpg
  794. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 32.jpg
  795. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 33.jpg
  796. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 34.jpg
  797. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 35.jpg
  798. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 36.jpg
  799. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 37.jpg
  800. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 38.jpg
  801. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 39.jpg
  802. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 40.jpg
  803. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 41.jpg
  804. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 42.jpg
  805. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 43.jpg
  806. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 31.jpg
  807. File:ছাত্র আন্দোলন এর বিপ্লবী গ্রাফিতি 44.jpg
  808. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 03.jpg
  809. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 01.jpg
  810. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 02.jpg
  811. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 06.jpg
  812. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 05.jpg
  813. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 04.jpg
  814. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 07.jpg
  815. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 09.jpg
  816. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 10.jpg
  817. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 11.jpg
  818. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 13.jpg
  819. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 12.jpg
  820. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 14.jpg
  821. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 15.jpg
  822. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 17.jpg
  823. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 18.jpg
  824. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 16.jpg
  825. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 19.jpg
  826. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 20.jpg
  827. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 21.jpg
  828. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 22.jpg
  829. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 23.jpg
  830. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 24.jpg
  831. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 25.jpg
  832. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 26.jpg
  833. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 27.jpg
  834. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 28.jpg
  835. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 29.jpg
  836. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 30.jpg
  837. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 31.jpg
  838. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 32.jpg
  839. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 33.jpg
  840. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 34.jpg
  841. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 35.jpg
  842. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 36.jpg
  843. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 37.jpg
  844. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 38.jpg
  845. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 39.jpg
  846. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 40.jpg
  847. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 42.jpg
  848. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 43.jpg
  849. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 44.jpg
  850. File:গ্রাফিতি,বৈষম্যবিরোধী ছাত্র আন্দোলনের 41.jpg
  851. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 03.jpg
  852. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 02.jpg
  853. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 01.jpg
  854. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 04.jpg
  855. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 05.jpg
  856. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 06.jpg
  857. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 07.jpg
  858. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 08.jpg
  859. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 09.jpg
  860. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 10.jpg
  861. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 11.jpg
  862. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 12.jpg
  863. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 13.jpg
  864. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 15.jpg
  865. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 14.jpg
  866. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 16.jpg
  867. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 17.jpg
  868. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 18.jpg
  869. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 19.jpg
  870. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 20.jpg
  871. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 21.jpg
  872. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 22.jpg
  873. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 23.jpg
  874. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 24.jpg
  875. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 25.jpg
  876. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 27.jpg
  877. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 26.jpg
  878. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 28.jpg
  879. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 30.jpg
  880. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 31.jpg
  881. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 32.jpg
  882. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 33.jpg
  883. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 34.jpg
  884. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 35.jpg
  885. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 36.jpg
  886. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 37.jpg
  887. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 38.jpg
  888. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 39.jpg
  889. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 29.jpg
  890. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 40.jpg
  891. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 41.jpg
  892. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 43.jpg
  893. File:Graffiti of Student Movement 2024 42.jpg
  894. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Ishwarganj 01.jpg
  895. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Ishwarganj 02 - cropped.jpg
  896. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Ishwarganj 02.jpg
  897. File:Graffiti Honoring July Revolution in Ishwarganj 03.jpg
  898. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 03.jpg
  899. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 02.jpg
  900. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 01.jpg
  901. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 04.jpg
  902. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 06.jpg
  903. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 05.jpg
  904. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 08.jpg
  905. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 07.jpg
  906. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 09.jpg
  907. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 10.jpg
  908. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 11.jpg
  909. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 12.jpg
  910. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 13.jpg
  911. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 14.jpg
  912. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 15.jpg
  913. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 17.jpg
  914. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 16.jpg
  915. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 19.jpg
  916. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 18.jpg
  917. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 20.jpg
  918. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 21.jpg
  919. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 22.jpg
  920. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 23.jpg
  921. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 24.jpg
  922. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 25.jpg
  923. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 26.jpg
  924. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 27.jpg
  925. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 29.jpg
  926. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 30.jpg
  927. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 28.jpg
  928. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 31.jpg
  929. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 33.jpg
  930. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 32.jpg
  931. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 34.jpg
  932. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 35.jpg
  933. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 36.jpg
  934. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 37.jpg
  935. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 38.jpg
  936. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 39.jpg
  937. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 40.jpg
  938. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 41.jpg
  939. File:বাংলাদেশের আগস্ট বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি 42.jpg
  940. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 02.jpg
  941. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 01.jpg
  942. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 03.jpg
  943. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 05.jpg
  944. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 04.jpg
  945. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 06.jpg
  946. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 07.jpg
  947. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 08.jpg
  948. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 09.jpg
  949. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 10.jpg
  950. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 12.jpg
  951. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 11.jpg
  952. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 13.jpg
  953. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 14.jpg
  954. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 15.jpg
  955. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 16.jpg
  956. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 17.jpg
  957. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 18.jpg
  958. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 19.jpg
  959. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 20.jpg
  960. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 21.jpg
  961. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 22.jpg
  962. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 24.jpg
  963. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 23.jpg
  964. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 25.jpg
  965. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 26.jpg
  966. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 27.jpg
  967. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 28.jpg
  968. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 30.jpg
  969. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 29.jpg
  970. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 31.jpg
  971. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 33.jpg
  972. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 32.jpg
  973. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 34.jpg
  974. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 36.jpg
  975. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 37.jpg
  976. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 35.jpg
  977. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 38.jpg
  978. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 40.jpg
  979. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 39.jpg
  980. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 41.jpg
  981. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 42.jpg
  982. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 43.jpg
  983. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 44.jpg
  984. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 45.jpg
  985. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 46.jpg
  986. File:গ্রাফিতির ছবি (২০২৪ এর ছাত্র আন্দোলনের সময়) 47.jpg
  987. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 02.jpg
  988. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 03.jpg
  989. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 01.jpg
  990. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 05.jpg
  991. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 04.jpg
  992. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 06.jpg
  993. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 07.jpg
  994. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 08.jpg
  995. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 09.jpg
  996. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 11.jpg
  997. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 10.jpg
  998. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 12.jpg
  999. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 13.jpg
  1000. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 14.jpg
  1001. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 15.jpg
  1002. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 16.jpg
  1003. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 17.jpg
  1004. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 18.jpg
  1005. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 20.jpg
  1006. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 19.jpg
  1007. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 21.jpg
  1008. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 22.jpg
  1009. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 23.jpg
  1010. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 24.jpg
  1011. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 25.jpg
  1012. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 26.jpg
  1013. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 27.jpg
  1014. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 28.jpg
  1015. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 29.jpg
  1016. File:গ্রাফিতি ছাত্র আন্দোলন ২০২৪ 30.jpg
  1017. File:Graffiti in NGMC (1).jpg
  1018. File:Graffiti in NGMC (2).jpg
  1019. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (3).jpg
  1020. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (4).jpg
  1021. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (5).jpg
  1022. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (6).jpg
  1023. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (7).jpg
  1024. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (8).jpg
  1025. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (9).jpg
  1026. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (23).jpg
  1027. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (24).jpg
  1028. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (25).jpg
  1029. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (26).jpg
  1030. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (27).jpg
  1031. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (28).jpg
  1032. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (29).jpg
  1033. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (30).jpg
  1034. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (32).jpg
  1035. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (31).jpg
  1036. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (33).jpg
  1037. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (36).jpg
  1038. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (34).jpg
  1039. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (35).jpg
  1040. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (38).jpg
  1041. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (37).jpg
  1042. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (40).jpg
  1043. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (39).jpg
  1044. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (41).jpg
  1045. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (42).jpg
  1046. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (43).jpg
  1047. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (44).jpg
  1048. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (45).jpg
  1049. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (46).jpg
  1050. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (48).jpg
  1051. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (47).jpg
  1052. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (49).jpg
  1053. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (50).jpg
  1054. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (52).jpg
  1055. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (51).jpg
  1056. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (54).jpg
  1057. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (53).jpg
  1058. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (57).jpg
  1059. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (56).jpg
  1060. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (55).jpg
  1061. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (59).jpg
  1062. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (58).jpg
  1063. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (60).jpg
  1064. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (62).jpg
  1065. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (61).jpg
  1066. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (64).jpg
  1067. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (63).jpg
  1068. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (65).jpg
  1069. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (67).jpg
  1070. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (68).jpg
  1071. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (66).jpg
  1072. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (69).jpg
  1073. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (70).jpg
  1074. File:Graffiti on Magra Bridge, Netrakona (71).jpg
  1075. File:Graffiti on Moktarpara Road, Netrakona (3).jpg
  1076. File:Graffiti on Moktarpara Road, Netrakona (1).jpg
  1077. File:Graffiti on Moktarpara Road, Netrakona (2).jpg
  1078. File:Graffiti on Moktarpara Road, Netrakona (5).jpg
  1079. File:Graffiti on Moktarpara Road, Netrakona (4).jpg
  1080. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (1).jpg
  1081. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (3).jpg
  1082. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (2).jpg
  1083. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (5).jpg
  1084. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (6).jpg
  1085. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (7).jpg
  1086. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (9).jpg
  1087. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (10).jpg
  1088. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (8).jpg
  1089. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (12).jpg
  1090. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (15).jpg
  1091. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (13).jpg
  1092. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (16).jpg
  1093. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (11).jpg
  1094. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (17).jpg
  1095. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (18).jpg
  1096. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (19).jpg
  1097. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (20).jpg
  1098. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (21).jpg
  1099. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (22).jpg
  1100. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (23).jpg
  1101. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (24).jpg
  1102. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (25).jpg
  1103. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi, Bangladesh after July revolution 01.jpg
  1104. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi, Bangladesh after July revolution 03.jpg
  1105. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi, Bangladesh after July revolution 02.jpg
  1106. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১.jpg
  1107. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২.jpg
  1108. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪.jpg
  1109. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩ 01.jpg
  1110. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৭.jpg
  1111. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৬.jpg
  1112. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৫ 01.jpg
  1113. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১০.jpg
  1114. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৮.jpg
  1115. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৯.jpg
  1116. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১২.jpg
  1117. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১১.jpg
  1118. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৩.jpg
  1119. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৪.jpg
  1120. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৫.jpg
  1121. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৬.jpg
  1122. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৭.jpg
  1123. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৮.jpg
  1124. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ১৯.jpg
  1125. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২০.jpg
  1126. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২১.jpg
  1127. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২২.jpg
  1128. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৩.jpg
  1129. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 on Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 02.jpg
  1130. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 on Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 01.jpg
  1131. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 01.jpg
  1132. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 02.jpg
  1133. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 03.jpg
  1134. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 06.jpg
  1135. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 04.jpg
  1136. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 05.jpg
  1137. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 08.jpg
  1138. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 07.jpg
  1139. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 09.jpg
  1140. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 11.jpg
  1141. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 12.jpg
  1142. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 13.jpg
  1143. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 14.jpg
  1144. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 15.jpg
  1145. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 16.jpg
  1146. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 17.jpg
  1147. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 18.jpg
  1148. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 19.jpg
  1149. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 20.jpg
  1150. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution, Bangladesh 21.jpg
  1151. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 02.jpg
  1152. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 01.jpg
  1153. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 03.jpg
  1154. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 05.jpg
  1155. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 04.jpg
  1156. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 06.jpg
  1157. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 08.jpg
  1158. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 07.jpg
  1159. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 09.jpg
  1160. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 10.jpg
  1161. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 11.jpg
  1162. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 12.jpg
  1163. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 14.jpg
  1164. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 13.jpg
  1165. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 15.jpg
  1166. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 17.jpg
  1167. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 18.jpg
  1168. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 19.jpg
  1169. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 20.jpg
  1170. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 21.jpg
  1171. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 22.jpg
  1172. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 23.jpg
  1173. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 24.jpg
  1174. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 25.jpg
  1175. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 26.jpg
  1176. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 27.jpg
  1177. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 28.jpg
  1178. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 29.jpg
  1179. File:Beautiful Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution 30.jpg
  1180. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 01.jpg
  1181. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 02.jpg
  1182. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 03.jpg
  1183. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 04.jpg
  1184. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 05.jpg
  1185. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 06.jpg
  1186. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 07.jpg
  1187. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 08.jpg
  1188. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 09.jpg
  1189. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 10.jpg
  1190. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 11.jpg
  1191. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 12.jpg
  1192. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 13.jpg
  1193. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 14.jpg
  1194. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 15.jpg
  1195. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 16.jpg
  1196. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 17.jpg
  1197. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 18.jpg
  1198. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 20.jpg
  1199. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 19.jpg
  1200. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 21.jpg
  1201. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 22.jpg
  1202. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 23.jpg
  1203. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 24.jpg
  1204. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 25.jpg
  1205. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 26.jpg
  1206. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 27.jpg
  1207. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 29.jpg
  1208. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 28.jpg
  1209. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 30.jpg
  1210. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 31.jpg
  1211. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 32.jpg
  1212. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 33.jpg
  1213. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 34.jpg
  1214. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 35.jpg
  1215. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 36.jpg
  1216. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 37.jpg
  1217. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 38.jpg
  1218. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 39.jpg
  1219. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 40.jpg
  1220. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 41.jpg
  1221. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi 42.jpg
  1222. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 01.jpg
  1223. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 03.jpg
  1224. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 02.jpg
  1225. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 04.jpg
  1226. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024 05.jpg
  1227. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 2024.jpg
  1228. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৬.jpg
  1229. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৪.jpg
  1230. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৫.jpg
  1231. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৭.jpg
  1232. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৮.jpg
  1233. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ২৯.jpg
  1234. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩০.jpg
  1235. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩১.jpg
  1236. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩২.jpg
  1237. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩৩.jpg
  1238. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩৪.jpg
  1239. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩৫.jpg
  1240. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩৬.jpg
  1241. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩৮.jpg
  1242. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৩৯.jpg
  1243. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪০.jpg
  1244. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪১.jpg
  1245. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪২.jpg
  1246. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪৪.jpg
  1247. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪৩.jpg
  1248. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪৫.jpg
  1249. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪৬.jpg
  1250. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪৭.jpg
  1251. File:২০২৪-এর ছাত্র-জনতার অভ্যুত্থান স্বরণে গ্রাফিতি - ৪৮.jpg
  1252. File:গ্রাফিতি - সংস্কার.jpg
  1253. File:গ্রাফিতি - ধর্ম যার যার দেশ সবার 01.jpg
  1254. File:The Final Nail Done - Graffitti.jpg
  1255. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution 01.jpg
  1256. File:গ্রাফিতি - তুমিও মানুষ আমিও মানুষ, তফাৎ শুধু শির দাঁড়ায়.jpg
  1257. File:গ্রাফিতি - দ্যা গ্রেট ওয়েভ ২৪.jpg
  1258. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution 02.jpg
  1259. File:গ্রাফিতি - এখনে রাজনৈতিক আলাপ করা জরুরি.jpg
  1260. File:উইকিমিডিয়া ফটোওয়াক রাজশাহী, সেপ্টেম্বর-২০২৪.jpg
  1261. File:গ্রাফিতি - এই শহর আমার.jpg
  1262. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের পরে রাজশাহীতে আঁকা গ্রাফিতি.jpg
  1263. File:গ্রাফিতি - যত বিপদ তত ঐক্য.jpg
  1264. File:গ্রাফিতি - সাহস থাকলে আমার উপর দিয়ে যান.jpg
  1265. File:Gen-Z Power.jpg
  1266. File:গ্রাফিতি - কারার ঐ লৌহ কপাট.jpg
  1267. File:গ্রাফিতি - সকল প্রকার অবিচার বন্ধ কর এবার, নিজেকে শুধরে নিয়ে মানুষ হ আবার.jpg
  1268. File:সমল থেকে পাহাড় এবারের মুক্তি সবার.jpg
  1269. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 25.jpg
  1270. File:She has made us fly.jpg
  1271. File:ওই MAMA না PLZ.jpg
  1272. File:তোমার বিচার করবে কে?.jpg
  1273. File:সাম্প্রদায়িক দাঙ্গা রুখে দাও.jpg
  1274. File:গ্রাফিতি - তুমিও মানুষ আমিও মানুষ, তফাৎ শুধু শিরদাঁড়ায়.jpg
  1275. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 24 (2).jpg
  1276. File:Bangladesh we are.jpg
  1277. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 24.jpg
  1278. File:দেশ গঠনে সকল ধর্মের মানুষের সম্প্রীতি চাই.jpg
  1279. File:1971 - 2024 - Victory.jpg
  1280. File:স্বাধীন হয়েছি, সময় এখন সভ্য হওয়ার.jpg
  1281. File:দিলি না অধিকার, হয়ে গেলাম সরকার.jpg
  1282. File:Generation Z in the graffiti - Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 24.jpg
  1283. File:রাজশাহী উইকিমিডিয়া মিটআপ, সেপ্টেম্বর ২০২৪ (১).jpg
  1284. File:গ্রাফিতি - সংস্কার (১).jpg
  1285. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution.jpg
  1286. File:গ্রাফিতি - ভাতের হোটেল - vater hotel.jpg
  1287. File:হীরক রাজার দেশে.jpg
  1288. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 24 (3).jpg
  1289. File:চাইতে গেলাম অধিকার, হয়ে গেলাম রাজাকার.jpg
  1290. File:বুকের ভেতর অনেক ঝড়, বুক পেতেছি গুলি কর.jpg
  1291. File:চাইতে গেলাম অধিকার, হয়ে গেলাম রাজাকার - গ্রাফিতি.jpg
  1292. File:৩৬ শে জুলাই.jpg
  1293. File:কারার ঐ লৌহ কপাট.jpg
  1294. File:খেটে বউ হও, চেটে নওয়.jpg
  1295. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 24 (4).jpg
  1296. File:Wikimedia Photowalk Rajshahi Sep 24 - Talaimari.jpg
  1297. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 01.jpg
  1298. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 02.jpg
  1299. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 03.jpg
  1300. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 04.jpg
  1301. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 05.jpg
  1302. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 06.jpg
  1303. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 07.jpg
  1304. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 08.jpg
  1305. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 09.jpg
  1306. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 10.jpg
  1307. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 12.jpg
  1308. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 11.jpg
  1309. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 13.jpg
  1310. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 14.jpg
  1311. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 15.jpg
  1312. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 16.jpg
  1313. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 17.jpg
  1314. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 18.jpg
  1315. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 19.jpg
  1316. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 20.jpg
  1317. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 21.jpg
  1318. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 22.jpg
  1319. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 23.jpg
  1320. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 24.jpg
  1321. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 25.jpg
  1322. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 26.jpg
  1323. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 27.jpg
  1324. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 28.jpg
  1325. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 29.jpg
  1326. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 30.jpg
  1327. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 32.jpg
  1328. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 31.jpg
  1329. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 33.jpg
  1330. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 34.jpg
  1331. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 35.jpg
  1332. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 36.jpg
  1333. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 38.jpg
  1334. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 37.jpg
  1335. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 39.jpg
  1336. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 40.jpg
  1337. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi after July revolution capture by Manik 41.jpg
  1338. File:Wall Graffiti Netrokona (2)~3.jpg
  1339. File:কারার ঐ লৌহ কপাট ভেঙে ফেল কর রে লোপাট.jpg
  1340. File:Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution.jpg
  1341. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 01.jpg
  1342. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 02.jpg
  1343. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 03.jpg
  1344. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 05.jpg
  1345. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 04.jpg
  1346. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 06.jpg
  1347. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 07.jpg
  1348. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 08.jpg
  1349. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 09.jpg
  1350. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 10.jpg
  1351. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 11.jpg
  1352. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 12.jpg
  1353. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 13.jpg
  1354. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 14.jpg
  1355. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 15.jpg
  1356. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 17.jpg
  1357. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 16.jpg
  1358. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 18.jpg
  1359. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 19.jpg
  1360. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 20.jpg
  1361. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 21.jpg
  1362. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 22.jpg
  1363. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 23.jpg
  1364. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 24.jpg
  1365. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 25.jpg
  1366. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 26.jpg
  1367. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 27.jpg
  1368. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 28.jpg
  1369. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 29.jpg
  1370. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 30.jpg
  1371. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 31.jpg
  1372. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 32.jpg
  1373. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 33.jpg
  1374. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 34.jpg
  1375. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 35.jpg
  1376. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 36.jpg
  1377. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 37.jpg
  1378. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 38.jpg
  1379. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 39.jpg
  1380. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 40.jpg
  1381. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 41.jpg
  1382. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 42.jpg
  1383. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 44.jpg
  1384. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 43.jpg
  1385. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 45.jpg
  1386. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 46.jpg
  1387. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 47.jpg
  1388. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 48.jpg
  1389. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 49.jpg
  1390. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 50.jpg
  1391. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 51.jpg
  1392. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 52.jpg
  1393. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 53.jpg
  1394. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 54.jpg
  1395. File:Graffiti in Tangail after July revolution 55.jpg
  1396. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 01.jpg
  1397. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 03.jpg
  1398. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 02.jpg
  1399. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 04.jpg
  1400. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 05.jpg
  1401. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 06.jpg
  1402. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 07.jpg
  1403. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 08.jpg
  1404. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 09.jpg
  1405. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 10.jpg
  1406. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 11.jpg
  1407. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 12.jpg
  1408. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 13.jpg
  1409. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 14.jpg
  1410. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 15.jpg
  1411. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 16.jpg
  1412. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 17.jpg
  1413. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 18.jpg
  1414. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 19.jpg
  1415. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 20.jpg
  1416. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 21.jpg
  1417. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 22.jpg
  1418. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 23.jpg
  1419. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 24.jpg
  1420. File:Graffiti in Tangail City 25.jpg
  1421. File:রাজনৈতিক বন্যা গ্রাফিতি.jpg
  1422. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০৩.jpg
  1423. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০২.jpg
  1424. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০১.jpg
  1425. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০৫.jpg
  1426. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০৬.jpg
  1427. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০৪.jpg
  1428. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০৭.jpg
  1429. File:জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি, রাবি ০৮.jpg
  1430. File:রাবিতে জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি ০৩.jpg
  1431. File:রাবিতে জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি ০১.jpg
  1432. File:রাবিতে জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি ০২.jpg
  1433. File:রাবিতে জুলাই বিপ্লবের গ্রাফিতি ০৪.jpg
  1434. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Government College (5) (cropped).jpg
  1435. File:Graffiti in NGMC (5).jpg
  1436. File:Graffiti in NGMC (4).jpg
  1437. File:Graffiti in NGMC (3).jpg
  1438. File:Graffiti in NGMC (6).jpg
  1439. File:Graffiti in NGMC (7).jpg
  1440. File:Graffiti in NGMC (8).jpg
  1441. File:Graffiti in NGMC (9).jpg
  1442. File:Graffiti in NGMC (10).jpg
  1443. File:Graffiti in NGMC (11).jpg
  1444. File:Graffiti in NGMC (13).jpg
  1445. File:Graffiti in NGMC (12).jpg
  1446. File:Graffiti in NGMC (14).jpg
  1447. File:Graffiti in NGMC (16).jpg
  1448. File:Graffiti in NGMC (15).jpg
  1449. File:Graffiti in NGMC (17).jpg
  1450. File:Graffiti in NGMC (19).jpg
  1451. File:Graffiti in NGMC (18).jpg
  1452. File:Graffiti in NGMC (20).jpg
  1453. File:Graffiti in NGMC (21).jpg
  1454. File:Graffiti in NGMC (22).jpg
  1455. File:Graffiti in NGMC (23).jpg
  1456. File:Graffiti in NGMC (24).jpg
  1457. File:Graffiti in NGMC (26).jpg
  1458. File:Graffiti in NGMC (25).jpg
  1459. File:Graffiti in NGMC (27).jpg
  1460. File:Graffiti in NGMC (28).jpg
  1461. File:Graffiti in NGMC (29).jpg
  1462. File:Graffiti in NGMC (30).jpg
  1463. File:Graffiti in NGMC (31).jpg
  1464. File:Graffiti in NGMC (32).jpg
  1465. File:Graffiti in NGMC (33).jpg
  1466. File:Graffiti in NGMC (36).jpg
  1467. File:Graffiti in NGMC (34).jpg
  1468. File:Graffiti in NGMC (35).jpg
  1469. File:Graffiti in NGMC (37).jpg
  1470. File:Graffiti in NGMC (39).jpg
  1471. File:Graffiti in NGMC (38).jpg
  1472. File:Graffiti in NGMC (40).jpg
  1473. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (1).jpg
  1474. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (3).jpg
  1475. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (2).jpg
  1476. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (4).jpg
  1477. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (5).jpg
  1478. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (7).jpg
  1479. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (6).jpg
  1480. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (8).jpg
  1481. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (9).jpg
  1482. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (10).jpg
  1483. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (11).jpg
  1484. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (12).jpg
  1485. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (13).jpg
  1486. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (14).jpg
  1487. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (15).jpg
  1488. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (16).jpg
  1489. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (17).jpg
  1490. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (18).jpg
  1491. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (19).jpg
  1492. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (20).jpg
  1493. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (22).jpg
  1494. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (21).jpg
  1495. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (23).jpg
  1496. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (24).jpg
  1497. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (27).jpg
  1498. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (26).jpg
  1499. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (25).jpg
  1500. File:Graffiti in AMGHS (28).jpg
  1501. File:Graffiti in NGC (3).jpg
  1502. File:Graffiti in NGC (2).jpg
  1503. File:Graffiti in NGC (1).jpg
  1504. File:Graffiti in NGC (4).jpg
  1505. File:Graffiti in NGC (7).jpg
  1506. File:Graffiti in NGC (6).jpg
  1507. File:Graffiti in NGC (5).jpg
  1508. File:Graffiti in NGC (8).jpg
  1509. File:Graffiti in NGC (9).jpg
  1510. File:Graffiti in NGC (10).jpg
  1511. File:Graffiti in NGC (11).jpg
  1512. File:Graffiti in Netrokona Govt. College (12).jpg
  1513. File:Graffiti in NGC (13).jpg
  1514. File:Graffiti in NGC (14).jpg
  1515. File:Graffiti in NGC (15).jpg
  1516. File:Graffiti in NGC (16).jpg
  1517. File:Graffiti in NGC (18).jpg
  1518. File:Graffiti in NGC (19).jpg
  1519. File:Graffiti in NGC (17).jpg
  1520. File:Graffiti in NGC (20).jpg
  1521. File:Graffiti in NGC (21).jpg
  1522. File:Graffiti in NGC (22).jpg
  1523. File:Graffiti in NGC (25).jpg
  1524. File:Graffiti in NGC (24).jpg
  1525. File:Graffiti in NGC (23).jpg
  1526. File:Graffiti in NGC (26).jpg
  1527. File:Graffiti in NGC (27).jpg
  1528. File:Graffiti in NGC (28).jpg
  1529. File:Graffiti in NGC (29).jpg
  1530. File:Graffiti in NGC (30).jpg
  1531. File:Graffiti in NGC (31).jpg
  1532. File:Graffiti in NGC (33).jpg
  1533. File:Graffiti in NGC (32).jpg
  1534. File:Graffiti in NGC (34).jpg
  1535. File:Graffiti in NGC (35).jpg
  1536. File:Graffiti in NGC (36).jpg
  1537. File:Graffiti in NGC (37).jpg
  1538. File:Graffiti in NGC (38).jpg
  1539. File:Graffiti in NGC (39).jpg
  1540. File:Graffiti in NGC (40).jpg
  1541. File:Graffiti in NGC (41).jpg
  1542. File:Graffiti in NGC (42).jpg
  1543. File:Graffiti in NGC (43).jpg
  1544. File:Graffiti in NGC (44).jpg
  1545. File:Graffiti in NGC (46).jpg
  1546. File:Graffiti in NGC (45).jpg
  1547. File:Graffiti in NGC (47).jpg
  1548. File:Graffiti in NGC (48).jpg
  1549. File:Graffiti in NGC (49).jpg
  1550. File:Graffiti in NGC (50).jpg
  1551. File:Graffiti in NGC (51).jpg
  1552. File:Graffiti in NGC (52).jpg
  1553. File:Graffiti in NGC (53).jpg
  1554. File:Graffiti in NGC (54).jpg
  1555. File:Graffiti in NGC (55).jpg
  1556. File:Graffiti in NGC (56).jpg
  1557. File:Graffiti in NGC (58).jpg
  1558. File:Graffiti in NGC (57).jpg
  1559. File:Graffiti in NGC (59).jpg
  1560. File:Graffiti in NGC (61).jpg
  1561. File:Graffiti in NGC (60).jpg
  1562. File:Graffiti in NGC (62).jpg
  1563. File:Graffiti in NGC (63).jpg
  1564. File:Graffiti in NGC (64).jpg
  1565. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (1).jpg
  1566. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (3).jpg
  1567. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (2).jpg
  1568. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (5).jpg
  1569. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (4).jpg
  1570. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (6).jpg
  1571. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (7).jpg
  1572. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (8).jpg
  1573. File:Mymensingh railway station graffiti (9).jpg
  1574. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (2).jpg
  1575. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (1).jpg
  1576. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (3).jpg
  1577. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (4).jpg
  1578. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (5).jpg
  1579. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (6).jpg
  1580. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (8).jpg
  1581. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (7).jpg
  1582. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (9).jpg
  1583. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (10).jpg
  1584. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (11).jpg
  1585. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (12).jpg
  1586. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (15).jpg
  1587. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (13).jpg
  1588. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (14).jpg
  1589. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (16).jpg
  1590. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (17).jpg
  1591. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (18).jpg
  1592. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (19).jpg
  1593. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (21).jpg
  1594. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (22).jpg
  1595. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (20).jpg
  1596. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (24).jpg
  1597. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (23).jpg
  1598. File:Graffiti at Jamalpur railway station (25).jpg
  1599. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 03.jpg
  1600. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 01.jpg
  1601. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 02.jpg
  1602. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 04.jpg
  1603. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 05.jpg
  1604. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 06.jpg
  1605. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 07.jpg
  1606. File:Graffiti in Rajshahi Bangladesh after 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement 08.jpg
  1607. File:Muktagacha graffiti (1).jpg
  1608. File:Muktagacha graffiti (2).jpg
  1609. File:Graffiti at Chirirbandar Railway Station (1).jpg
  1610. File:Graffiti at Chirirbandar Railway Station (2).jpg
  1611. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 01.jpg
  1612. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 02.jpg
  1613. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 03.jpg
  1614. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 04.jpg
  1615. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 05.jpg
  1616. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 06.jpg
  1617. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 07.jpg
  1618. File:Graffiti at Dinajpur Govt. College 08.jpg
  1619. File:Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution captured by manik.jpg
  1620. File:Wall art of student protest in Dhaka city 07.jpg


Category:Humanity

I think this category needs a cleanup, as there are two common definitions of "humanity". One is "the quality of being benevolent; humane traits of character; humane qualities or aspects", and the other is "mankind". The category is probably intended to refer to the former definition, but the Wikidata infobox uses the latter one. I don't know whether we need a separate category for the whole mankind, but we can create Category:Mankind if needed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as is – no idea why you think this would be about "the quality of being benevolent; humane traits of character; humane qualities or aspects".. Nothing there indicates that, no subcategory and not the Wikidata infobox or the common use of that word. No action needed except that cat Mankind should redirect there. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
That would be fine, probably. But there can be stuff related to "the quality of being benevolent; humane traits of character; humane qualities or aspects", which would be categorized under Category:Humanity. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
No, that is the wrong name and that there can be such content doesn't mean any change is needed. Create a new category for that and check what this is commonly called. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Middle age

Category:Young adulthood, Category:Young adults, Category:Middle age and Category:Middle-aged people are not useful categories to diffuse people images to subcats, since there are wildly different definitions of what constitutes "young adulthood" (18-40, 18-30, or variations thereof) or "middle age" (40-60, 45-65, or variations thereof). In my opinion, if you know the age of an adult, categorize them into "N-year-old people" instead of these stage of development categories, and if we don't, categorize them into Category:Adult people. No need for Category:Young adults and Category:Middle-aged people for this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Мангистауская область

Literally just the Mangystau Region category, but the title is translated to Russian. The following images have to be moved, too Nurken (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saint Visarion the New Church, Bucharest

I believe we should rename this Category:New Saint Visarion Church, Bucharest. "New" modifies "Church", not "Saint Visarion". Analagously for the "Old" church. Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Also acceptable would be "New Church of Saint Visarion". - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wokeness

A rather vague and prejorative category for which we have appropriate categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nude adolescent boys by view

Totalmente innecesaria. Vea las subcategorias... 191.126.171.133 12:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

 Wait — Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude_teenagers is ongoing and may also affect this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with any ongoing lengthy discussions about "who is smarter than whom". This is about subcategories. One has only one file and that file could well be kept in the other subcategory. That makes those subcategories unnecessary. When the said subcategories are unnecessary then this category is also unnecessary. Therefore DELETE all three and Close this discussion. 191.125.3.162 13:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Delete, upmerge. No need for this breakdown. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Diagrams

Concerning Template:Diagrams. See:

Here is the version of the template before ŠJů's edit war:

Note: All diagram categories should contain diagrams as defined and illustrated in the Wikidata box at Category:Diagrams: "plan, drawing, sketch or outline to show how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole". Maps, and basic statistical tables, charts, and graphs, are not diagrams. They should be moved to subcategories of Category:Information graphics such as Maps, Charts, Statistics, etc..

Multiple people (including 2 admins) agreed with the template in August 2020. User:Themightyquill, an admin who agrees with this template, and who initiated the original category discussion, no longer wants to "merge Category:Diagrams by subject with Category:Information graphics by subject." That was his initial proposal (see the original proposal at the top of the category discussion). Instead he prefers this template. As I said this template agreement is a separate agreement. So no one remains who wants the initial category proposal passed. The other admin is User:Royalbroil.

What this comes down to is whether the Commons is going to use English definitions of English words? Or are we going to use German and other definitions of English words.

Most editors of mainstream American, British, Canadian, or Australian publications or media sites would not allow their writers to use the word "diagram" in an article to describe a basic map, or a basic statistical table, bar chart, or graph. The editor would be considered dumb. A map is a map. A table is a table. A bar chart is a bar chart. A graph is a graph.

There are specialized illustrations that are sometimes called diagrams that may have elements of tables, charts, maps, and graphs. See:

But basic maps, tables, charts, and graphs are not called diagrams. The Commons category structure needs to honor the basic understandings of diagrams, maps, tables, charts, and graphs. So that it is easier to find stuff.

Basic graphs are also commonly called charts, too. So the word charts can cover basic statistical tables, bar charts, area charts, and graphs. Area charts are a combination of a graph and a densely packed bar chart. These are all common basic English definitions. All of the above in their basic formats would not normally be called diagrams.

This is the common understanding. For example; at the top of meta:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests, an old project, it says:

  • "At this stage, illustration means diagrams. Not photographs, charts, or maps."

Diagrams, in normal English parlance, has a specific meaning. And it is not "photographs, charts, or maps." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

From the previous discussion and side agreement at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams by subject the diagram template is modeled on Template:Propaganda that has been on many propaganda categories since 2010. It solved a lot of problems by clarifying what was allowed in propaganda categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you want to change as a result of this discussion, @Timeshifter: ? I agree that "diagram" would not be used in an article to describe a basic map, or a basic statistical table, bar chart, or graph.Royalbroil 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Royalbroil. I started this specific category discussion to make the diagram template more official. The other category discussion where this was first discussed had a different original focus. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I Support the diagram template as written above. Royalbroil 14:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem with the template text above. The categorization "system" we have now, while longstanding, was clearly created without forethought, and as a result, it is a total mess. This seems like a reasonable proposal to fix it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Coming into this debate as a native German speaker, I can confirm that in German we understand all charts to be diagrams, and call them "Diagramm" as we don't have another word for it. German "Diagramm" includes all forms of geometrical abstract depictions like pie charts, 2D/3D-graphs, population pyramids but also pyramid diagrams and organizational charts. Specific charts may be called by their type (bar charts = "Balkendiagramm", line charts = "Liniendiagramm", pie charts = "Kreis-/Torten-diagramm")...
What the OP calls diagram (I have to assume) is called "Schaubild" in German, and all charts ("Diagramme") are still a subgroup of those, with other subgroups being technical/anatomical schematics ("Schema"), biological drawings ("Illustration"), maps ("Karte")... Speaking of maps: "Charts" in German refers specifically to (musical) record charts; the related word "Karte" means maps, and a map is strictly not considered a "Diagramm".
I have no problem moving stuff into "Chart"-categories if that is the proper name in English parlance, but consulting dictionaries and the en-WP itself I have come to doubt the original statement presented here. I agree however: the proper categorization of diagrams, charts and other schematic information in Commons is really a mess currently, because there is no overarching structure that an unsuspecting editor will be guided into. Just one example, "Political organization charts" are not charts if I understand the OP correctly, but actually diagrams? --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Enyavar. Thanks for the info. Yes, those are diagrams in Category:Political organization charts. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed to resurrect the Charts and diagrams category to resolve the issue on whether an information graphic is a chart or a diagram. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
See Category:Information graphics. It is a broad category that includes much more than just charts and diagrams. It also includes maps and illustrative explanatory graphics. As Enyavar pointed out concerning the German definition of "diagramm": "a map is strictly not considered a 'Diagramm'."
The beauty of using "infographics" is that it allows all images with some abstract info in them to be put in one category. Charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, illustrative explanatory graphics, etc..
You created (on May 25, 2024) the category of Category:Statistical graphics. I support the idea of it. But I think Category:Data graphics is better. "Data graphics" is used in the real world. Do google searches of it. An example:
https://dtkaplan.github.io/Lessons-in-statistical-thinking/L02-Pointplots.html
See also: User_talk:Prototyperspective#Diagrams. It may be in the talk archive there by the time you go there. He likes "data graphics" too.
Category:Statistical graphics is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. As "Data graphics" would be.
Data graphics, unlike "statistical graphics", can eventually be shortened to "datagraphics". The single word is not in this dictionary yet:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/datagraphic
But I think datagraphics will be eventually. Just as "infographics" has ended up in dictionaries. In the meantime we can use "data graphics". It is already happening. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Sbb1413, Prototyperspective, and I have agreed, and so Category:Statistical graphics now redirects to Category:Data graphics. It is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Everything is diagram

There are too many categories named "diagram" or "chart", both words almost synonymous, and applicable to a majority of SVG files. People put almost everything into such categories, instead of sorting by topic. This is bad and makes files impossible to find. Proposal: Either delete them altogether (after emptying), or strictly and prominently limit what types of files belong in. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wondering why you included Illustrations there – those are not in the diagram category and aren't diagrams. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Look at the contents of that category. The name is excessively vague, and as a result it's ended up a dumping ground for any non-photographic image (and a nontrivial number of photos) where the uploader can't think of a more specific category. Omphalographer (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Just like the "Maps" category, where we also get regular dumps of some hundred maps. All it takes is multiple patrollers checking it daily to make sure that all maps are correctly sorted along mulitple criteria. Not long ago, the maps main category was a neverending dumping ground of thousands of files, too. That is no grounds for catty-zide.
I don't have much insight in this tree and assume it should be reorganized since I also have problems finding stuff whenever I search something. One major issue in my opinion is the distinction between SVG and and other diagrams. In my opinion, whether or not a file is SVG or not should be an automatically maintained hidden subcategory, not a main distinction. People searching for Category:diagrams of boilers can find them, but must check the SVG-variant category as well to find all of them. And once someone gets the brilliant idea to subdivide the category by boiler type, the SVG category is either ignored or also needs to split.
That's as if we'd make distinctions between JPG paintings and TIFF paintings throughout the category tree. --Enyavar (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Illustrations probably shouldn't be deleted, but it should be handled as a permanent diffusion category just like other generic categories like Category:Photographs or Category:Images. Having files only categoried as "illustrations" is effectively leaving them uncategorized.
Re. SVG vs. non-SVG - I agree! How would you feel about a proposal to start reintegrating SVG categories, starting with something like Category:SVG flags by country? So many flags are only available as SVG that it no longer makes sense to keep them separate. Omphalographer (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Taylor 49, Prototyperspective, Omphalographer, and Enyavar: I agree that SVG categories are becoming excessive, and they should be hidden categories instead. Anyway, regarding Category:Diagrams and Category:Illustrations, here are my proposed definitions below:
  • Category:Diagrams — any non-photographic (or a mix of photographic and non-photographic) 2D work showing how something works or the relationships between the parts of a whole. It does not include charts, graphs and maps. For example, Category:Diagrams of the James Webb Space Telescope categorizes non-photographic images of the space telescope showing its individual components.
  • Category:Illustrations — any non-photographic 2D work illustrating a given subject, including diagrams, paintings, AI-generated works etc. It does not include charts, graphs and maps, as they don't directly illustrate their respective subjects. For example, Category:Illustrations of Orion (spacecraft) categorizes non-photographic images of the Orion spacecraft, where the photographs come under main categories.
As you've noticed, the examples are from space exploration, because I once commonly used these categories in space-related topics. And these categories can form a basis to define the main categories. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
By the way, I've categorized Autosomal recessive pattern.png under Category:Diagrams, as it shows how the autosomal recessive pattern works, thus coming under the definition of a "diagram". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I've moved the file to a topic-specific category, Category:Autosomal recessive. Broad categories like "diagrams" are rarely, if ever, appropriate on files; there's no conceivable situation where a user would be looking for a diagram but not care what it was a diagram of. Omphalographer (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the subject of debate is here now but illustrations can include photographic components if things are overlaid onto them to illustrate things and not all diagrams are illustrations. This for example is a diagram but not an illustration. Rarely are illustrations physical paintings but there's some. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The distinction between "image" "illustration" "chart" "diagram" "schematic" etc simply does not work for categories. I propose to move everything from such cats into one category named something like "image awaiting categorization by subject". There would be nothing wrong with well-defined categories like "electrical circuit schematic diagrams", but generic "diagrams" is unusably vague. And even stuff like "SVG diagams" or "chemistry diagrams" is still unusably vague. There are many different types of diagrams in chemistry, and they should be categorized by other criteria. Better "chemistry-related images awaiting better categorization" than fake-duly done categorization as "diagrams", "charts" or similar.
I suppport the idea to drop SVG subcategories, with several detail reservations, explained on the example Category:Autosomal recessive:
  • there must be additional hidden cats for file types, thus Category:SVG autosomal recessive remains, but will be additional and hidden, and SVG files will be in both "Autosomal recessive" and "SVG autosomal recessive" without this being blamed as overcat
  • there must be similar additional hidden categories for "language-neutral SVG" and "multilanguage SVG" (those two exclude each other, but are both additional to both SVG subcat and the topic cat above it)
  • there should be similar subcategories for other file types Category:PNG autosomal recessive Category:GIF autosomal recessive etc
  • categorization by chief media type (image, video, sound) should remain
> probably shouldn't be deleted, but it should be handled as a permanent diffusion category
Agree to have "permanent diffusion categories", but they should be as few as possible, and be prominently taged as such, ideally even in the name. "illustrations" can be merged into "images" immediately with no risk and no loss of information. So there could be diffusion categories:
  • photos photographs needing categorization by topic
  • diagrams needing categorization by topic
  • maps needing categorization by topic
  • animations needing categorization by topic
Those 4 types of images can be reliably distinguished, whereas for example "diagrams" and "charts" cannot.
@User:Sbb1413 @User:Prototyperspective @User:Omphalographer @User:Enyavar: The SVG remerge needs a separate proposal. Who wants to fire it? Taylor 49 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: I agree with these diffusion categories (though it should be "photographs" rather than "photos" to maintain consistency) and the proposal to hide SVG categories. While there was a consensus to deprecate {{Categorise}} in favour of {{Diffuseat}}, it seems like there are still cases where {{Categorise}} is needed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
 Strong oppose adding even more format-specific categories. Where the format of a file is relevant at all, it can be easily determined by looking at the file extension. Format-based categories inherently make maintenance activities more awkward - even if files are co-categorized as e.g. "Maps of Africa" + "SVG maps of Africa", that's still two categories which need to be changed if the file is recategorized; it also means that there's a whole "shadow" category structure for the SVG categories which needs to be kept in sync with the main categories. Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes. We have at least three voices who already agree on that part. Do you want to start the proposal? I'd think we should propose the CfD on Category:SVG files or a prominent subcat there, then alert the public at. the pump. --Enyavar (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Commons:Requests for comment/Categorization of SVG files. Still this does not resolve the problem of vague categories like "image" "illustration" "chart" "diagram" "schematic" "drawing" etc. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
see Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:SVG by subject for the separate proposal. --Enyavar (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Demonstration of support for the homophobic preaching of Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski

Uses on neutral language. Does not depict an archbishop or preaching. Depicts a demonstration in support of an archbishop Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)


What is your suggestion for a better name for the category? Having read the relevant passage of his Polish article, I would think we could replace "homophobic" with "anti-LGBT" which would also include trans people (whom he also disparaged on the pulpit). --Enyavar (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I suggest Category:Demonstration of support of Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski. This is all that can be verified from the image. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Or even Category:Demonstrations supporting Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski, thus doing away with confusing prepositions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
True Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Far-right nationalist protesters off against LGBT community in Kraków

Delete I doubt that any of the protestors depicted consented to their image being uploaded Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)


Several of these people are figures of public interest who participated prominently in a public event, even as speakers. They were not caught by accident and they also proudly identify with their political direction in these images. So I vote to  Keep this documentation of a political movement. Deletion means removing a part of Polish history. As a compromise, faces of bystanders can be retouched to preserve their identity. --Enyavar (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep as a procedural matter; if you object to these photos being available on Commons, please take them to COM:DR. Omphalographer (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Institutions for the deaf and dumb

Proper name needs to be found: First of all, this category should only apply to schools, asylums and other instituitons that were named after "the deaf and dumb" to be housed or instructed there.

However, I think the category name is probably going to be seen as offensive. My idea is to tone it down by apostrophes... just which way?

  • Institutions for the "deaf and dumb" (only apostrophizing the offending term)
  • Institutions for the "Deaf and Dumb" (also Capitalizing, to show it is a name)
  • Institutions "for the deaf and dumb" (also include the "for the", which was typical for usage but not always part of the name. Variant: with Capitalization)
  • Same ones as above but with „“ instead of "" (proper punctuation, harder to input)
  • Punctuation but with other characters: “” vs. ‘’ vs. «» vs. »« (like the above, also hard to input)
  • no punctuation, just Capitalizing
  • no renaming

I'm torn. -- Enyavar (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Institutions named "for the Deaf and Dumb" perhaps? The use of "named" makes it clear that we're quoting the official names without endorsement. Omphalographer (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, thanks. I'll make the change in the next days unless someone else jumps in with a better idea. --Enyavar (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep It exactly describes the content in plain English. There is no insult. The deaf self-describe as deaf. So do the dumb. So do those who are both deaf and dumb. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep (i.e. "no renaming") per Laurel Lodged. Also, if we go by Enyavar's rationale of that the category name is "probably going to be seen as offensive", we should also rename Category:Old people to something else (like "elderly people" or "senior citizens"), as "old people" or similar "may harm feelings" to some (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment "Deaf and Dumb" was a combination term used by the founders/administrators of such institutions who were not deaf and dumb themselves - so I wouldn't exactly say "self-described". I'd also like to point out, that I created this category earlier on the same day after noticing how many "deaf and dumb" schools there had been, and then I had second thoughts about my chosen category name if seen without the historical lens. But sure, if not renaming turns out to be the consensus, I'm also okay with that. --Enyavar (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep - it is what they were called. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Postcards of the Cherry Street Bridge

The individual who started the categories Category:Cherry Street Bridge, Category:Cherry Street Bridge (-1913), Category:Cherry Street Bridge (1914-) and Category:Postcards of the Cherry Street Bridge, seems to have assumed that Toledo is the only city on Planet Earth that has a Cherry Street, that has bridges on it. When I looked into these bridges, over a decade ago, I found something like half a dozen cities had bridges on their own Cherry Street.... Clearly all four of these categories require disambiguation, and a disambiguation page is required... Geo Swan (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Its a DAB on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Question: do we have photos of any of the others? - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    Even if we don't yet, there's enough Cherry Street Bridges out there that confusion is inevitable. Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
    • We have hundreds of photos of the multiple Cherry Street bridges, here in Toronto. My recollection is that, when I looked into this, fifteen years or so ago, I found at least a few images of Cherry Street bridges, from cities other Toronto and Toledo. Geo Swan (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support My main issue is with disambiguating the old and new bridges since I don't think something like "Cherry Street Bridge (Toledo, Ohio, -1913) or similar works. It's not a super big deal though. As a side to that, there's Category:Cherry Street Strauss Trunnion Bascule Bridge. Although it doesn't seem to be called "Cherry Street Bridge" officially, a lot of the images of it are shortened to just "Cherry Street Bridge." So it's probably worth turning Category:Cherry Street Bridge into a DAB even if it's the only other bridge on here with a somewhat similar name. Again though, if the categories are disambiguated I'd appreciate it if whomever renames the categories for the old and new bridges in Toledo do so in a way that makes sense and keeps them separate. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Do we know what year the earlier bridge was built? Usually that is how we disambiguate things like two successive bridges with the same name. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Toledo's current bridge was known as the "Cherry Street Bridge", for decades. But, decades ago, it was officially renamed to honor Martin Luther King Jr.... Isn't its official name still the "Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge", or something like that?

    Isn't Category:Martin Luther King Bascule Bridge (Toledo, Ohio) the name we should continue to call it -- not Category:Cherry Street Bridge (1914-)?

    Fun fact... the bridge was constructed during the golden age of streetcars. One of Toledo's streetcar routes used the bridge, and some very clever engineering went in to providing electricity to streetcars, when the bridge was down, without electrocuting anyone when the bridge was in the upright position. Geo Swan (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article it was "rebuilt" in 2001, which is when I assume it was renamed to Martin Luther King Bridge. I'm hesitant to refer to the old bridge as that since it seems like locals still refer to the pre-rebuilt bridge as "Cherry Street Bridge." Usually we defer to local naming convention for such matters and from what I can tell all the files for the pre-2001 structure refer to it by the original name. Per the description in one of the files "A view of the current Cherry Street Bridge, now the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge, shortly after it was built in 1915. But just to be clear, I don't care either way. I just don't want people to wrongly categorize images. However you want to accomplish that is your business though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Slop

Please rename to Category:AI slop so the name is not so sloppy... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Move without leaving a redirect. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support per nomination, AI slop is more specific, as most images here (perhaps all?) are AI generated. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
 Delete Unless there is some kind of criteria or rule for the use of this category then the content will always be completely arbitrary. Judging from the discourse of AI generation on Commons recent months i have little reason to believe the category will be used in good faith--Trade (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Finished

Useless dump category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children

I found several different definitions of the term "child" from the Wikipedia article child:

  • "a human being between the stages of birth and puberty".
  • "[a human being] between the developmental period of infancy and puberty".
  • "the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, in this case as a person younger than the local age of majority".
  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child definition: "A human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."

The current category follows the latter two definitions, with the "age of majority" set at 18 globally. However, some also makes a distinction between "childhood" (ending at puberty) and "youth" (starting from puberty). Not only that, but puberty is also a "bright line" in human development, similar to the first walking of kids, or the ageing of adults.

So, my proposal is to limit the definition of "child" upto puberty, and cover both Category:Children and Category:Adolescents under a new category called Category:Minors or Category:Underage people.

Another problem I see is with Category:Children by person, which uses a different definition of "child", a human offspring. I don't know what to do with this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's my proposed human stages of development in Commons: {{Category navigation/people/sidenote/sandbox}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support but I'd use "Minors" (probably with a qualifier to avoid ambiguity) rather than "Underage people" which would be ambiguous and not very meaningful. I'd also consider having Category:Children as a DAB page due to the meaning of "Children" to refer to someone's offspring regardless of age and due to the fact as noted sometimes the term "Child" can refer to someone under the age or majority. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose A person aged 12 years is still a child, even if he/she is pubescent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't mentioned any exact age criteria for what constitutes a child, as I no longer want such categories to be defined by specific age ranges. However, for sake of approximation, a human aged between 0 and 13 can be considered a child, while those aged between 13 and 18 can be considered an adolescent (not "teenager"). Otherwise, the terms are supposed to be independent of specific age ranges. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
    I’m not too fussed about ages either, as long as we are clear about whether categories include under-18s, over-18s or both.
    But let’s test this a bit. A ‘boy’ is a ‘male child’. Supposed we define ‘childhood’ in such a way that it stops before ‘adolescence’. Then what is an ‘adolescent boy’? Brianjd (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that this is separate from chronological age, it is a stage of development which may not track chronological age the same for all people. I think the 'boy' question is valid. If we break down 'children' into 'infants', 'children', and 'adolescents', then does 'boys' breakdown into 'male infants', 'male children', and 'male adolescents'? Certainly possible. I think we should probably have a plan for it though before we resolve this. Josh (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
For context, this discussion follows from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Teenagers, which itself follows from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude teenagers. Brianjd (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didn't see myself as "child" when I was 17. And actually a 17 old person is hard to affirm that's a child. Imho until 14 you're a child, from 14 to 18 you're a boy or a girl, from 18 onward you're either a man or a woman (and technically, reprising the topic raised in the above post, teenager means a person between 13 and 19 but I think I don't say anything new about that). But these are only our categorizations. The main problem is that we often use categorizations prone to ambiguity. For example, association football players from England is a categorization which is not ambiguous: either one belongs to it or not. All the categorizations here should have the same clarity. And "Children" is one of those. -- Blackcat 07:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Blackcat Fair point, but we certainly aren't trying to account for every user's personal self-identification here. As for ambiguity, I suppose it is fair to say that any use of the English language is open to ambiguity by those who want to find it, but the current definition of Children as used on Commons from essentially the dawn of the project is 'people under 18 years of age', which is pretty unambiguous unless you really want to be pedantic. Josh (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413 I like your proposal, but on practical grounds, my main issue is with retaining the category name 'children' for one of them, when currently Category:Children covers infants, young children, and adolescents. The reason is that while I think in the distant future, when all media are adequately diffused into those three, the current Children cats will be an unnecessary intermediate level, in all practicality, given the massive amount of media we are talking about, we will still need the umbrella category covering infants, young children, and adolescents. Perhaps the middle category could be 'young children' (between infant and adolescence) for this period. Eventually, when the diffusion is well implemented, then we can discuss disposing of the umbrella level and at that time renaming young children to children if it seems warranted. Josh (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale, Laurel Lodged, Brianjd, Joshbaumgartner, and Blackcat: It looks like limiting the term "children" to non-adolescent minors will cause problems with defining the terms "boys" and "girls", both of which refer to young males and young females respectively. So, I now propose the following structure instead:
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Why would it cause problems with the terms "boys" and "girls"? A boy or girl is a child or adolescent so I don't see why there is a problem with categorizing a boy or girl as a child or as an adolescent depending on which they are which might it not be easy to say. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The category name should define what is meant. For example Category:Adolescents (aged 14-18 years) and Category:Young children (under 14 years). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged We don't structure category names like that. We give as short and succinct a name as possible and the definition is handled through hat notes and other means. Parenthetical dab information is only to be used when we have multiple categories that would have the same name but for the parenthetical info. If we wanted to include the chronological ages, we would just do so directly in the name such as Category:14- to 18-year-old adolescents and Category:Children under 14 years old or some such. However, I don't even think we want to do that as Sbb1413 has stated, these intentionally are not rigidly tied to specific chronological ages. We already have chronological age categories in place for that. Josh (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I agree, and although I once tried to tie stages of development with chronological ages, turns out that's not a good idea. Instead, I try to define these categories based on certain "bright lines". For example:
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support @Sbb1413 That looks good. I wouldn't necessarily see the need to include babies and toddlers under young children, since this would be a new category definition and we can easily just have it be from toddler to adolescence. I know that obviously 'young children' can mean a lot of things, just as 'children' can, but the point is how we define it for Commons use, not its many and varied uses in the world at large. However, if you want to add the extra level of hierarchy and nest babies and toddlers there, it isn't technically a problem, so I'd support your proposal either way. Josh (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Learning programs

How it is distinct from Category:Educational programs? In general, there's no distinction between "education" and "learning", unless you're a teacher for whom "education" equals to "teaching" instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rote learning

Small and redundant category. Merge to Category:Memorizing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rubab

Should this merge with Category:Rebab? They seem to be much the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it should not - while they're related and have similar names, they're not the same. The rubab is played by plucking its strings (like a guitar), whereas the rebab is usually played with a bow (like a violin). See en:Rubab (instrument) vs. en:Rebab. Omphalographer (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG by subject

We had the discussion about SVG diagrams here, and several people agreed that it makes sense to abolish those subcategories that declare topical differences between files based on file formats, when there are in fact no such topical differences.

What is the idea?. The current situation is that we have a sprawling category double-structure that reaches far far down, even into e.g. Category:SVG flags of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands and holds those SVG files seperate from the "regular" files with flags of that territory. In my opinion, Category:SVG files should become a hidden category that is assigned and maintained by bots, based on the topical categories of a file. With topical categories, I mean that we should stop making a difference between "normal" boilers and SVG boilers. This means to upmerge the SVG boilers to be included among all boilers, but add a hidden category:SVG diagrams, maintained by a bot. In the end, we would have a comparably limited number of SVG topical categories, and they would be hidden in the background.

To what level would do we have to cut down? I think this is very much open for debate. I am against a radical upmerging of everything and slapping "SVG file" as a hidden category on it (that would be Level 0). Instead, we should for sure keep the different types of images separate: "SVG maps", "SVG diagrams", "SVG icons", "SVG logos", "SVG flags", "SVG illustrations", "SVG cartoons", etc. This is what I would call Level 1. We could also be a bit more generous and allow "SVG flags of France", "SVG logos of France", "SVG maps of France", or "SVG technical diagrams". This is what I would call 'Level 2. But once we have distinguished an SVG file based on type and country, we would stop subdividing by even more qualifiers - e.g. "SVG logos of political parties of France"; . The current way however goes down to Level 3 and below: This parallel structure should be upmerged into the regular category tree.

To break it down on a few examples: Category:SVG linguistic maps of the world is unnecessary: Those would be "Linguistic maps of the world" (topical category) and "SVG maps" (L1) or "SVG maps of the world" (L2). Also, Category:Bosnian-language SVG logos goes too far. Those should be "Bosnian-language logos", "SVG logos" (L1) or "SVG logos of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (L2) and also "Bosnian-language SVG". The first of those would contain all SVG logos from that country with no further subcategories; the second would contain all SVG using that language (logos, cartoons, maps, diagrams...). Another example would be Category:SVG Ancient Egypt. That category itself is level 1 and okay. In it, we currently go down as far as Level 3, differentiating that it is an SVG file (L0), that it's Ancient Egypt by topic (L1), that it's an art-style based illustration of... (L2) and which kind of object is illustrated, e.g. an animal or a deity (L3).

Why would this move be helpful? My point is that L3, L4 and so on are excessive: people neglect to assign all the proper parent categories (point), and when the regular topical category is eventually further split up, the SVG branch is either forgotten or the splitting results in a very small category of just a few files, in same cases just a single one. Doing all this manually adds to the randomness of the category tree - in fact, many people uploading SVG files don't even assign them to the SVG categories. The non-editing users of Commons potentially ignore the SVG content and will use inferior raster graphics since they didn't see the SVG subcategory (speaking from experience), if they browse by category. And if they don't browse that way, then it makes no difference if we have or don't have an SVG subdivision.

Precedence: I did a quick archive dive on the topic, and found that the problems I argued for have been seen by others before: this led to the abolishment of PNG-subcategorization at least in one case, been brought up on the AN in in March 2020 after a discussion in January 2020 and been briefly discussed on the village pump in the same month. Nobody objected to the idea presented, yet I don't think anything has moved since then. If this has been adressed elsewhere (including potentially the original discussion why SVG graphics should be split up that much), I'd be glad to learn more.

Other options? Issues that I haven't adressed? I'm again glad to learn more. This is not a super urgent topic and I am certain that we will find examples where my suggested approach fails. That would mean exceptions, or a different approach. Instead of blind activism, we should do this right.

Notification: Since this debate on a meta-category has such large-scale consequences, I will first ping the participants of the precedent discussions: @Estopedist1, Themightyquill, Ainali, Rob984, Gone Postal, Timeshifter, Omphalographer, Sbb1413, Prototyperspective, and Taylor 49: .
If I forgot somebody, please add them here. If you're not interested on this topic please also give notice or delete yourself from the ping list. If we can hammer out a preliminary consensus, I'll gladly post a notice in the village pump so that we don't exclude other people who are interested. --Enyavar (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

@Sbb1413: I don't understand. What exactly does the template do? Can you show it in use somewhere? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Timeshifter: The template follows the simple algorithm below:
  • If 'country' exists then
    • If 'type' exists then add category "SVG 'type' of 'country'".
    • Else add category "SVG 'country'".
  • If 'type' exists then
    • If 'country' exists then add category "SVG 'type' of 'country'".
    • Else add category "SVG 'type'".
  • If 'lang' exists then add category "'lang'-language SVG".
Basically, the proposed template will categorize images according to Enyavar's proposal. For example, if you have a Bengali-language SVG map of India, you would add the proposed template there as {{SVG file|country=India|type=map|lang=Bengali}}, thus categorizing the map under Category:SVG maps of India and Category:Bengali-language SVG. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: Does the template have to be added to each file page? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Timeshifter: Ideally yes, but manual categorization can also be a valid alternative. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Another reason I'd argue that the SVG category structure needs to go is that it creates a sort of "shadow hierarchy" of SVG-specific categories which is difficult to keep in sync with the main category system. One current example is Category:SVG personal flags of Kyrgyzstan - the parent category Category:Personal flags of Kyrgyzstan is missing, and as a result the image is difficult to find without specifically navigating through Category:Flags of Kyrgyzstan → Category:Flags of Kyrgyzstan by type of image → Category:SVG flags of Kyrgyzstan → Category:SVG personal flags of Kyrgyzstan.

    As such, I'd like to make an even more radical proposal: what if we did away with format-specific categories entirely? For the rare instances where users actually want to find an image in a particular format, it's possible to do that using the "File type" option in Special:Search. Condensing SVG files into larger and larger categories just means those categories become much harder to use, to the extent that users practically have to use search to find anything in them anyway. Omphalographer (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  • SVG Special:Search. An option to sort by extension should be in all categories. Then there would be no need for SVG categories at all. A dropdown menu like Amazon uses for any set of search results. For example; maps, or US maps:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=maps
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=US+maps
Amazon sorts by featured, price, rating, newest, and best sellers. Commons dropdown menu could sort by SVG, PNG, JPG, etc.. This function would probably need to be added in the Mediawiki software for the Commons. Here is Special:Search for SVG maps in Category:Choropleth maps of the United States (copy and paste into browser):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns6=1&search=deepcat%3A%22Choropleth+maps+of+the+United+States%22+filemime%3Aimage%2Fsvg%2Bxml&advancedSearch-current={%22fields%22:{%22filetype%22:%22image/svg+xml%22,%22deepcategory%22:[%22Choropleth%20maps%20of%20the%20United%20States%22]}}
Is there a way to limit it to just one category, and not the subcategories too?
Or maybe the number of levels down can be chosen in the dropdown menu too. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I oppose a hardcoded numeric limit such as Level 2 exactly for the reason that the number of files there can range from ZERO to thousands, as Category:SVG maps of India demonstrates. I support to hide the "SVG branch" and copy all files into the chief topic categories. As I wrote in other RFC, there are 2 catches:
  • categories for language-neutral SVG:s and multilanguage SVG:s should remain, since it is NOT visibile on the extension or anywhere whether a SVG file maybe is language-neutral or multilanguage or not
  • there are other non-subject features possibly worth categorization (videos without sound, animated GIF:s PNG:s WEBP:s, ...)
The other "more radical" proposal to drop the SVG cat:s altogehter is interesting as it circumvents the "Level 2" issue. But still there are or will be language-neutral SVG:s and multilanguage SVG:s (if not for maps of India, then for biological structures and other stuff). If the SVG categories are dropped altogehter, then Category:Multilingual SVG mathematics will be directly subcat of Category:Mathematics. IMHO keeping multilanguage SVG:s easy to find is crucial. Last but not least, I strongly oppose vague categories such as charts, illustartions, images, graphs, diagrams, drawings etc. Diagrams related to chemistry should be under chemistry (directly or via subcat), and diagrams related to music should be under music (directly or via subcat). There is absolutely no reason to mix chemistry images with musical images claiming than both are diagrams. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Language-neutral SVG:s and multilanguage SVG:s can be indicated in the file title. Then those 2 sorting options could be added to the dropdown menu I previously mentioned. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Strong support Language-neutral SVG:s and multilanguage SVG:s indicated in the file title -- but this needs and policy and renaming many files. The "dropdown menu" is currently far from available. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the dropdown menu would require someone requesting it at Wikimedia Phabricator. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Timeshifter and Taylor 49: Instead of language-neutral, monolingual and multilingual SVG categories or file titles, I suggest having categories like Category:Language-neutral images, Category:Images by language and Category:Multilingual images, although they can also contain photos (cf. Category:Language-neutral signs, Category:Signs by language and Category:Multilingual signs). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: Those categories would end up with images for many topics. A dropdown menu on every category page would be much more useful. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate all the points mentioned above, not least Omphalographer important concerns about the creation of hidden hierarchy of SVG categories. On the other hands, I don't really see the point in grouping SVG files into very broad categories that will contain barely related images. My preference would be to eliminate SVG and other file format categories entirely and replace them with some kind of technical solution to filter (or at least sort) images by format within topical categories. I'd prefer not to take any half-measures until that can be arranged - the status quo, bad as it is, is better than nothing. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Right, what did actually come from that policy discussion on Wikimedia a few weeks ago? The one where the Foundation wanted to decide the fate of Commons? Cannot fibd the links anymore in the pump, so this seems to be lost in the ether, but that kind of filter would be an appreciated tool. --Enyavar (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG flags of the United Nations member states by year of membership

This category, and its 42 subcategories, are effectively a timeline in the form of a category system. This information doesn't belong in the category system; if a timeline is desired, it should be created as a gallery page, not a set of categories. Omphalographer (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Unhelpful intersection of categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Georgian churches in Turkey

Category:Diocesan Shrine and Parish of Nuestra Señora de la Asunción, Bulakan

Very formal and ecclesiastical name of Category:Our Lady of the Assumption Parish Church in Bulacan, Bulacan, but we usually do not go by these formal names imposed by the church authority; rather, we use what the commonly-used name applies. But since this is Commons, we usually go by the common name of the parish church. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Timepieces

Do we need to distinguish between Category:Clocks, Category:Hourglasses and Category:Watches? Both Category:Hourglasses and Category:Watches are already categorized under the subcats of Category:Clocks, so it becomes an COM:OVERCAT issue. I've removed both categories from Category:Timepieces to ensure that the policy is followed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Watches are already a subset of clocks. I've actually never heard anyone call an hourglass or sundial a "timepiece". This category seems useless. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Norman architecture

"Neo-Norman architecture" can refer to i) revival of 11th- and 12th-century en:Norman architecture and ii) revival of en:Architecture of Normandy#Vernacular domestic styles and the Commons category contains a mixture of both. The category description refers to 11th- and 12th-century architecture. I have explained this in more detail at en:Category talk:Neo-Norman architecture.

Category:Concepts by city

This CFD is for the following categories:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Concepts by region resulted in deleting the category for concepts by region. There also seemed to be support for deleting other categories for concepts by location. However, not all the categories listed above were specifically discussed, hence this CFD.

I think there are arguments for eliminating most or all of the concepts categories in general -- pretty much anything can be seen as a concept, and we don't need to duplicate all that there. Here, though, I'm only including the categories for concepts by location because the issues are likely to be different for other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Estopedist1, Laurel Lodged, Jmabel, JopkeB, Joshbaumgartner, and Sbb1413: : Pinging the people who participated in the earlier linked discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete all and also Category:Concepts, as pretty much any topic (i.e. main categories in Category:Topics) can be a concept. I believe that Category:Topics should be the root category for topics, where the topmost topics would be categorized. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: There's also Category:Ideas to consider. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, another problematic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. There may be a good reason for top-level Category:Concepts, especially as a catcat, but geographic breakdown at that abstract level makes no sense. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete: the four categories about concepts by location mentioned by Auntof6. The others need seperate CFD's. --JopkeB (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
There are three, not four. :) Concepts by region was dealt with by the earlier CFD. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Where a lot of these categories seem to be coming from is an attempt to take a concrete "topic by location" category, like Category:Fireplaces in Belarus, and creating parent categories representing abstractions on the topic while leaving the "by location" intact, e.g. Category:Heating in Belarus, Category:Climate control in Belarus, Category:Thermodynamic processes in Belarus, etc. This isn't an appropriate way to analyze these topics - the question of "what is a fireplace, anyway" should be answered at the main Category:Fireplaces, not by every subcategory involving them. Omphalographer (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:History of Ireland by topic

duplicate of Category:History of Ireland by subject Robby (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lechitic culture

Unnecessary and poorly defined concept Trade (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Disasters and accidents

A humongous union category of Category:Accidents and Category:Disasters. Content should be diffused into these two categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree although there is overlap many disasters aren't accidents like natural disasters such as floods. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Items

Redundant to either Category:Objects or Category:Entities. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Objects, I think. Entities are something different, although there are some things in that category that I don't think belong there. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Or even things, since some of the subcats are things like bus routes and space missions. Or maybe it needs to break down to more than just one place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
No qualms. I only created this cat to join at the top some subcats, like Religious items and Items by number. I doub that "item" is a good synonym for "object", even at the rarefied level of the Commons cat tree, so close to the root, but okay. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Causes of World War II

I'm not sure whether it is a useful category or not. World War II has numerous causes, including Category:Treaty of Versailles, Category:Nazism or many other stuff covered in the category Category:Interwar period. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

See also: Category:World War I origins. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sanborn maps by year

I have a principal issue with Sanborn maps. In my opinion, single Sanborn "map" files should generally not be allowed outside of their categories.

Problematic situations include Category:1898 maps of California, where Sanborn maps are directly filed as "Maps of California". Not a single file in that category shows more than a nano-percentage of the actual state of California, yet these files overcrowd not only that category but they are omnipresent throughout the category tree, making it difficult to browse for actual maps. This is not a 1895 map of California, it is an incomplete cadastral village plan. Sure, from that state. But if anything, it should be classified as "Farmington, California", right? Yet that was the missing part!

The proposal is that Sanborn maps should be categorized in each state as follows:

that last thing is wrong right now, and should change.

Again, these are large-scale cadastral plans; calling them "maps" is a generous usage of the term. They had their purpose back in time; and they have historical value for sure; but if we pack them directly anywhere in the category tree, they clutter everything up. If I am allowed to hazard a guess: Most people searching for map of California or 1897 in California directly in the category tree don't want to browse through thousands of castastral plans of Farmington, Sleepyville & Co. Even the few Sanborn maps that show downtown LA are still not old maps showing California. Those people who do search for specific plans, should navigate to the respective county or location.

Why I place this CfD here? I think "1897 Sanborn maps" are a great idea; most Sanborn maps are currently only categorized by their county. But "<year> Sanborn maps" should be the only place where Sanborn maps are assigned to year-categories - inside the Sanborn category tree.

Please: Contain them. --Enyavar (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment In Commons usage "maps of California" does not mean only maps of all of California, just like "flags of California" does not mean only state flags, and also includes (for example) city and county flags.
We could easily have a subcat of Category:1898 maps of California something like Category:1898 maps of California (full state). Someone could probably do better for naming than that, but I think my concept is clear. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I suggest Category:State maps of California for maps of the entire state. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I see what you mean there, JMabel, but what exactly is the benefit from this Sanborn map from 1948 being categorized in the "1897 maps of California" category branch, where it currently is placed? The Sanborn maps category tree is... problematic that way. (point 1: Sanborn maps are regularly placed in the wrong years)
Another thing is that ordering all cadastral plans of California by the year they were published is impractical, when they each only cover two or three street blocks. It makes almost no difference if a Sanborn map is wrongly categorized under "1898 maps" or "1886 maps", but it is a huge difference when that map is placed under the wrong location, like "Nevada County" instead of "Los Angeles County" (point 2: categorization by location should take precedence over that by year)
It also seems California in 1898 already covered a sufficiently large territory that it actually had subdivisions - yes even back in 1898. If we're actually going to make subcategories, then shouldn't we make a subcategory for each subdivision, instead of making a subcategory for "exception" where the whole state is concerned? Like, "1898 maps of Mendocino County, California"? Around ~60 Sanborn files qualify for that category, so it wouldn't be empty. Next, "1898 maps of Nevada County, California"? Around ~80 Sanborn files qualify for that category. And so on. In the end, you will have year-by-county map categories for all counties in California that got served by Sanborn in that year... Oh wait, that is basically what we already have with the "Sanborn-maps-by-county" maps, as they are currently organized already. (point 3: The Sanborn map category structure already does intend to organize them by years, internally - that structure just needs to be straightened out; and for some states it already is). --Enyavar (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to answer most of that, but the benefit is that is is part of a consistent naming system and pattern of inheritance for categories. Just as all maps of California go somewhere under the category for maps of the United States, all maps of parts of California go somewhere under the category for maps of California. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
And, yes, county-by-county subcats are also perfectly appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The current Sanborn maps structure and I don't see the issue here. They really should maps within the maps of the United States as a type of United States map for that particular year. Individual maps of a specific city, if we don't have a category, will be buried within the map for the state, for the county or in Category:1948 maps where they are now. The various 'maps' that are Civil War-era plans aren't formal maps of anything. Just because you personally don't think the year of the plans matter but the year of what you consider "real" maps does isn't a justification for getting rid of them. If I look in 1948 maps of California and that happens to include 'plans' for a home inside California then until you come up with the alternative name and get approval for that structure, then it belongs in 1948 maps. Regardless of whether you personally hate the idea of calling them maps, it doesn't mean we should remove them from the current categorization and leave them uncategorized and overturn the years of work a lot of people have done categorizing these as maps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    But again, why are the maps which you talk about above, those that were produced in 1948 classified as "1897 maps"? Make it make sense to me. --Enyavar (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    Re "Civil War-era plans" - could you provide examples for that? I am not aware of 1860s Sanborn maps.
    Re "getting rid of them" - nobody talks about deletions. My concern is that Sanborn maps are unneccessarily packed directly into the by-year categories. Just for an example, the maps of California between 1884 and 1899 consist to 99%+ of Sanborn maps. If you moved them into "<year> Sanborn maps of <state>", I would not object to them that much. --Enyavar (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    The Civil War-era plans aren't Sanborn maps. If you look at the hundreds of maps that make up Category:1861 maps of Virginia, is File:(Battery no. 3) ; - outwork no. 1 ; outwork no. 2. LOC lva0000110.jpg a map or not? It is to me. I'm saying these are maps and you haven't identified a criteria other than "I want Sanborn maps separated because I like my map categories to look a specific way." The goal here is to organize our images so that people can find the ones they need, not to create category that look beautiful for people to browse while thousands of actual useful images are hidden away because they aren't a perfect match for what you think a map of California in a specific year looks like. Yes, right now, of course there are few other maps from the late 1880s of California so why remove the ones that do exist? If you want them broken down further in the state one, then suggest that but there is no consensus to completely separate them from the universe of maps because the vast majority of people uploading and sorting them consider them maps. It feels like you want all of them removed at this time and there is no consensus for that since they intertwine at the state, county, and city level, along with the separate individual cut-outs people do to add to articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  • For Washington State we have Category:Old maps of Washington (state) => Category:Old maps of cities in Washington (state) => Category:Sanborn maps of Washington (state), then a breakdown city by city. Within the particular city we'll have something like Category:1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington, which does have Category:1896 maps of Washington (state) as a parent (for a category, not for individual maps). I think that's reasonable, especially since the content of the category adds up to a rather detailed map of Tacoma. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    🤨 And did you notice that one of these child categories of 1896 is Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Kalama, Cowlitz County, Washington, which also contains Sanborn maps from 1908 and Sanborn maps from 1930?
    🤨🤨 P.S.; there is also the issue that 1896 maps of Washington state does have 55 Sanborn maps that are directly filed under the category, and not contained in their own Sanborn maps categories.
    Sorry that I continue to repeat these two arguments. --Enyavar (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
    • So some things are badly categorized. But it doesn't invalidate the general approach, just means further categorization work is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
      There are also multiple uploads of the same file separately organized and thousands missing. If you had the main category organized at the X year maps of state Y then people can easily see the duplicates and move them together. It is giant project that has been worked on for years and is barely been cracked at because it's really hard to make it clean enough for bots to assist on. - Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials

A well-known union category, which can be split into Category:Monuments and Category:Memorials.

According to Wikipedia, a monument is "a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event, or which has become relevant to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, due to its artistic, historical, political, technical or architectural importance". While I initially thought the term "monument" has two definitions, turns out the definitions may be related to each other. On the other hand, according to Wikipedia, a memorial is "an object or place which serves as a focus for the memory or the commemoration of something, usually an influential, deceased person or a historical, tragic event". So, memorials cannot be clubbed with monuments and categorized as structures.

So, the concise definitions of the two terms can be as follows:

  • Monument — any structure created or used to explicitly commemorate a person, event, historic era, or cultural heritage. Includes Category:Cultural heritage monuments, but not eponymous buildings.
  • Memorial — any object or place created, used, or named to commemorate a person or event. Includes eponymous buildings, but not Category:Cultural heritage monuments.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just in case, I've boldly recreated the respective categories to show the differences between the two. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
I concur with Crouch's comment above. The proposed distinction between "monument" and "memorial" is slight at best, and it doesn't survive contact with concepts like national monuments in the United States - most of which aren't structures at all, but rather regions of protected natural land like the Grand Canyon or Muir Woods. In a lot of contexts, these terms are used interchangeably; grouping them together in a category is fine. Omphalographer (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale and Omphalographer: It seems like there's no consensus for the split, but the problem is that most of the "monuments and memorials" subcategories are put under either "structures" or "objects". I support making "monuments" and "memorials" as direct main categories separately. While I can see the overlaps between monuments and memorials, but I can also see the monuments that are not memorials, like the Category:Cultural heritage monuments that are not commemorative, and the Category:National monuments Omphalographer has cited. For the same reason, both monuments and memorials cannot come under Category:Commemoration, only memorials come under it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
If a "Structures in X" category doesn't exist I think they could just be put in "Buildings in X". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Yeah, that's something many users do when a "Structures in X" category does not exist, although I don't think that's a good practice. But that's another topic, the point is that both monuments and memorials can be something beyond just buildings and structures, like coins, places, trophies, personal belongings, etc. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd expect most of the time it works fine but yes there are cases like as you say it comes down to things like coins that it doesn't work as well which points to splitting the categories but otherwise it seems to work and the split would probably duplicate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
There was a similar discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Inns in the United Kingdom noting that the different isn't distinct though with monuments and memorials there is probably less overlap but still lots. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Islands of the North Atlantic

Convert into a dab page. I initially created this category to categorize all the islands in the North Atlantic, including the Category:British Isles, but the category's definition is now reduced to just an alternative term for the British Isles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Trusteeship

Trusteeship can also refer to the time period of a post-colonial country that was once a UN trust territory. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is definitely not the content I'd expect from that title.  Rename the current category to Category:Anti-trusteeship movement in the Postwar Korea (or maybe "... in post-war Korea"), then create a new category at the current title for the notion of trusteeship in general. Omphalographer (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of California by year

Categorization "by year" is way too granular for all maps previous to the 21st century (i.e. old maps), and should be abandoned in favor of a more specific categorization "by location". Instead of "by year", maps of the state of California can be organized "by decade".

why "maps published by year" is not a good idea
There are many reasons, and I tend to bee too elaborate, but here's the gist of it. Skip it if you know the arguments already.
  • Production cycles for maps were multiple years, meaning that original maps mostly show a situation that was surveyed in the years prior to the publication.
  • In many cases, maps were reprints of older versions, sometimes decade-old maps with just minimal brushups, if any. Compare for example the Johnson-Colton maps of Washington: This map was in print for over a decade, before the design was dropped entirely, in favor of newly surveyed data.
  • Dating a map is not always correct. In many cases, archives assign a "ca. 1860" date to old maps. That should not be interpreted as "definitely published 1860", but is often done by editors nevertheless. Factual errors and misinterpretations also often lead to miscategorizations; those are easier detected on the decade-level.
  • This complex problem becomes less significant in the late 20th century, with automated and computerized cartography that produces more and more maps. However, copyright prevents Commons from hosting many maps since the 1940s, due to copyright issues. Instead of being more abundant, by-year categories only hold very few maps after 1940.
  • After the year 2000 (to have a round cutoff year) I see no issues with by-year categorization: Most of these newer maps were digitally produced, often directly by the user base for inclusion in WP/Commons. One should still be cautious because I can easily produce+publish a "2025 map of California" by mixing data from 2006 and 2012 - what year would that belong to?

The devil is in the detail however: Old maps by year cannot simply be upmerged to the "by decade"-level en masse. This would lead to overcrowded categories with thousands of files.

how local maps can be better organized by-location instead
Instead of just upmerging, maps need to be carefully sorted by the depicted locations and topic.
how did we get here?
My suspicion is that several factors contributed to the by-year debacle in the first place.

Maps dates are seemingly good factual statements from the file description, easy to assign to a map at first glance. If the first category of a map is "1890 maps", other editors will shuffle the map down the category tree like here, resulting in a "1890 map of Pennsylvania" which actually just shows one single town. Yes, it went in the right direction, but the important local category was still missing. This was compounded by a big growth of "by-year" categories in in 2018 and since. Always with the best intentions, of course. But... eh. Anyway.

Once we properly categorize the local maps by the area they actually display, then only maps that show significant portions of California would remain. For that rest, decade-categories generally suffice; and the "maps-by-year" categories can be removed afterwards. (Some by-year categories would still apply, but rather like Category:1890 in San Francisco/"1890s maps of San Francisco" instead of "1890 maps of California".)

This is not a new issue; see also here and here, with more voices opposing "by-year"-categorizing than supporting it.

For an example category structure, please see Category:1820s maps of Massachusetts and Category:Old maps of Essex County, Massachusetts: The former has old state-level maps, anything showing just two counties or less goes into the latter one and its sibling categories. I would argue that subdividing old Essex maps by century would also make sense, at some point. --Enyavar (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Enyavar (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

As there has not been much movement so far: @Broichmore, Adamant1, Omphalographer, Prototyperspective, Pi.1415926535, DarwIn, Nosferattus, Jheald, LPfi, and Mike Peel: you participated in the previous village pump talks. Now, I just wanted to brush this up again, with a concrete proposal. This is not urgent at all, but eventually I would like to have a re-structuring as outlined above. --Enyavar (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the ping. I fully support getting rid of the "by year" categories. I don't think there's any actual utility to having an 1892 map of some random small town in northern California in the same category as one for a similar place in southern California. It's also questionable that there's any actual difference between a map created in 1892 and one made in 1893. Most, if not, all people find maps by the location first and foremost anyway. I don't see a problem with categorizing them by decade just in case though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support - These categories are completely unhelpful (and unnecessary). Ironically, they make it impossible to actually find maps by time period as you have to tediously go through every year separately, many of which only have a single file in them. Nosferattus (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Some of these by-year categories already have hundreds of files; merging them into decade categories would make them too large to easily navigate, and would flood the California-by-year categories. Many maps can be accurately dated to the year level - public transit map, for example, can often be dated to the day that a service change took place, and thus the year is absolutely certain. I wouldn't be opposed to upmerging years in the decades that have <5 maps per year, but the busier years should not be upmerged. The upmerging of the Massachusetts categories was done without consensus and has made it more difficult to find maps of a specific year. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Principally yes, there is much merit in categorizing (same) stuff by year/date. But it's not a great primary key if the stuff you categorize is not actually the same. An insurance map of Farmington, an election map of Los Angeles, and a tectonic map of the Bay Area are so vastly different things, that it doesn't help you finding them under "1912 maps of CA". And yet, old map files are often categorized just by the year and not by the actual locality, which turns these categories just into an unorganized dumping ground, despite all good intentions.
But granted: if after re-arranging the maps by locality, it then turns out that we still have too many files per city/county/state and decade, exceptions can certainly be made. (However, files can usually be subdivided in another way, like these 100+ files from "1905 maps of Boston" which were really all the same single map). All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support. Adding to the arguments already presented, the publishing date of the map usually is year(s) later than the actual date of the map, making such precise dating kind of useless, at least for the map itself. But it should be done with good sense and taking into account the caveats presented by Pi.1415926535.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this needs a careful and serious approach, done file by file. --Enyavar (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pi.1415926535. There are actually hundreds of maps for a particular year and I agree that upmerging them without a larger consensus makes it more difficult to find maps by a particular year. This is largely an issue of a lot of maps not being categorized at all beyond "old maps". You need to look at a category where people have broken down the maps extensively by individual year like Category:1860s maps of Virginia. If you took out the individual by year maps, you're ending up with roughly 1000 maps for the single decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
A lot of the maps in Category:1860s maps of Virginia seem to be duplicates. I assume the same goes for maps of California. So that can easily be solved by creating more specific "maps by location by decade" categories. Its super dumb to keep a whole way of categorizing maps that clearly doesn't work when there's other ways to do it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Also, the 1861-1865 ones are notably maps showing the Civil War. That period both had an unusual amount of maps produced (compare 1870s maps of Virginia!) and a large interest by editors who wished to upload those maps for articles. Then, there are lots of misclassifications: A map produced in 1880 showing a 1863 battle, is not a 1863 map. Anyway, most of these maps can still be broken down to the county level, just as proposed above. --Enyavar (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:1908 in Great Britain

Merge Category:1908 in Great Britain into Category:1908 in the United Kingdom. Great Britain was part of wikipedia:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1908, therefore it wasn't a separate country back then. Mikinisk (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support, as the content in Category:1908 in the United Kingdom can be diffused into England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales categories without having an intermediate Great Britain category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support The only subcat is now empty. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Could you also weigh in at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books from Great Britain by year? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Winter Hill

There are many other Winter Hills in the world (e.g. Winter Hill in Somerville, Massachusetts, USA, so probably should be renamed Winter Hill (UK) or something like that. 4300streetcar (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support But I'm not sure what the best target is given there are 2 in Lancashire and 1 in Berkshire maybe Category:Winter Hill (near Bolton) given this one is partly in Greater Manchester as well as being in Chorley district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations

Move to Category:SVG logos of American Broadcasting Company affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG CBS station logos

Move to Category:SVG logos of CBS affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG NBC station logos

Move to Category:SVG logos of NBC affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG logos of local Fox television stations

Move to Category:SVG logos of Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:CBS station logos

Move to Category:Logos of CBS affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of CBS News local affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:NBC station logos
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Astros4477: Why add "News" to the name? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Because that is the name of the parent category - Category:CBS News local affiliates. It can certainly be debated there whether “News” should be included, but the logo category should mirror whatever it is.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Logos of local Fox television stations

Move to Category:Logos of Fox Broadcasting Company affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Technically this should probably be renamed to Category:Logos of Fox television channels to be in alignment with Category:Logos of television channels but "affiliates" is to anachronistic and ambiguous for organizing logos of television channels on Commons since category names should be extremely clear to avoid confusion. Yes, the channels are "affiliates" of the Fox Broadcasting Company, but it's more important to organize logos by subject. Not by some arbitrary corporate structure that has no actual bearing in the real world.
As a side to that, if you look at Category:Television network affiliates of the United States it's a sub-category of Category:Companies by affiliation which is ill-defined. It is also a subcategory of Category:Categories by association. Again, another ill-defined category that's a child of Category:Clubs and societies. Television stations are neither a club or society. Ergo, it would make zero sense to have images of television station logos in a subcategory of a subcategory of one for clubs. If it were me, I'd start a CfD for either Category:Companies by affiliation or Category:Categories by association, if not both. Since neither one makes sense. But this should be renamed to Category:Logos of Fox television channels so it's in alignment with the parent category in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Nah, I personally say stations or affiliates is the best choice, since they aren't technically channels. OWaunTon (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of Fox network affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:NBC station logos
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:CBS station logos
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations

Move to Category:Logos of American Broadcasting Company affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of ABC network affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:NBC station logos
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:CBS station logos
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:NBC station logos

Move to Category:Logos of NBC affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of NBC network affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:CBS station logos
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations
Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:PBS member stations

Move to Category:Logos of PBS member stations to align with category on Wikipedia; non-logos can be split to their own category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This category aligns with a category on Wikipedia. I'd support creating a subcategory for logos, within this category. — WFinch (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with WFinch. Why move a non-logo category to a logo one? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:The CW logos

Move to Category:Logos of The CW affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia; network and program logos can be split to their own categories Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG The CW logos

Move to Category:SVG logos of The CW affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia; network and program logos can be split to their own categories Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:MyNetworkTV logos

Move to Category:Logos of MyNetworkTV affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia; service logos can be split to their own category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG MyNetworkTV logos

Move to Category:SVG logos of MyNetworkTV affiliates to align with category on Wikipedia; service logos can be split to their own category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:PBS member networks

Move to Category:Logos of PBS member networks to align with category on Wikipedia; non-logos can be split to their own category Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This category aligns with a category on Wikipedia. The proposed category could be created as a subcategory. — WFinch (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

I seriously wonder how useful this category is since essentially everyone on the political right could be considered a COVID-19 conspiracy theorist. Certainly any semi-right wing American news commentator or politician would be one. Although I don't know if any of those people would necessarily consider themselves conspiracy theorists, which is another issue with the category. Regardless, similarly subjective "catch all" categories have been deleted recently and I think the same should be done here. Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment without taking a stance either way on whether this is a useful Commons category, almost no one ever considers themself a "conspiracy theorist".
I'd say plenty of people on the right in Europe, and a fair number in the U.S., were in no way "conspiracy theorists" about this (and a fair number on the left were: I knew people who were sure the Trump administration had engineered this to destroy community, for some unspecified reason). FWIW, it didn't make someone a conspiracy theorist to hold the position (right or wrong) that children's education and socialization would suffer from quarantine more than public health would benefit, nor even about the (despicable) view that the weak and old should just die, or to in a Thatcherite "there is no such thing as society" opposition to public health programs. "Conspiracy theory" should mean things like a belief that this was a deliberately engineered epidemic, especially one targeted at particular ethnic groups, or that the number of deaths was wildly different in either direction than what was being reported, or that the vaccines were comparably dangerous to the illness, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. The question of whether people are or are not "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" is rather subjective. I don't think it's one which Commons needs to answer; let other more topic-focused projects like Wikipedia hash it out. Omphalographer (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Covid science denialism is a thoroughly-discussed and well-defined sub-topic of conspiracy theorism. There is nothing subject about this and there is no reason why this should be removed while every other subcat of Category:Conspiracy theorists gets to stay Trade (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@Trade: I have a back ground in religious and conspiracy theory studies. Minor point, but there's a difference between "science denialism" and "conspiracy theorism." They aren't the same thing. These people can be, and probably are, "science deniers" or whatever. That doesn't mean they are necessarily conspiracy theorists though. Otherwise you could put the categories and files for every religious person that we have media for in the category simply because they have unorthodox views about COVID. That's a large part of the issue here. The category is to inclusive to be useful going by your own standards of who belongs in it. At least in the United States "Science deniers" are more then half the population. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep Only people with an encyclopedic assessment are of interest. The rest of the US population is not interested. Everything that interests is in the Wikipedia projects. Allforrous (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Yet in the meantime you dumped a bunch of categories into this having to do with people who aren't knowing as "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" just because they are politically right leaning and slightly skeptical of COVID. I still maintain that essentially every minor right wing celebrity who's had an opinion about COVID-19 in last 4 years is way to inclusive and subjective to be useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Does beliefs such as "COVID was created by the Jewish elite to thin the population", "COVID vaccines are a ploy to implent electronic microchips into the recipients" or "COVID vaccines were created by the Antichrist to mark Christians with the Mark of the Beast" fall under slight skepticism under according to you? Are Commons really not allowed to call a spade a spade? Trade (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd classify most of that under general vaccine skepticism, which there's already Category:Anti-vaccinationists for. Someone like Category:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is known for being generally against vaccines, not the COVID vaccine per se. He's certainly not primarily notable for spreading COVID-19 misinformation by any stretch. It needlessly convolutes things IMO to put categories for people who are anti-Zionist or generally against vaccines in specific categories for whatever the latest right conspiracy theory grift is at the time. Know one hopped on board the idea that Jews are trying to thin the population specifically because of COVID. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Temples in My Son

Nomination for deletion. The My Son complex is by itself ruins of temples. Thus, creating a cat of "temples in My Son" is redundant. Moreover, it is hard to justify whether a specific structure is considered "temple" rather than, say, "gate" (Gopura), "tower" (Thap), "storage" or meditation hall (Mandapa) - all of them serve similar purposes that loosely are "temples" in this complex. Not to mention the ambiguous nature of these ruins where some structures are yet to be established with their exact functions that may or may not fit "temples" definition. Similar cases can be seen in other cats of Hindu temples worldwide - it is uncommon to find a temple with subcat as "Temples in .... Temple" - it is just redundant. -- Chainwit. (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chainwit.: I think renaming it to Category:Buildings in My Son will fix the issue. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I have recently also created category:My Son by structure for the identified structures. My question now would be which of the terms "building" vs "structure" be more suitable. (given most ruins in the complex may not considered "buildings"; ie intact with walls and ceilings. I'm not too proficient on these term definitions or whether one is a subset of the other. Please feel free to fix me on this note.) I would agree on changing it to Buildings/Structures in My Son; which IMO can encompass other modern buildings on the site (eg the shuttle bus station) as opposed to sculptures or nature scenes (eg file:Forest and river at My Son.jpg). -- Chainwit. (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I now think it would be better to use "structures" as instead of "buildings", as "structures" is broader than "buildings" and we can create "buildings" categories under "structures" when we have enough buildings. Note that ruins of buildings are often categorized with modern buildings, or sometimes as "ruins of buildings". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Yangmeiguzhen

This appears to be a duclicate of Category:Yangmei, Guangxi created by automated panormino import. Ought to be merged. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Interior del castillo de Montearagón

Mother category uses "Castle", not "castillo". 181.203.90.27 01:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chaldean organizations

Empty category, request for deletion Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gualdrada

This can be deleted, I created it (by clicking on a red link) by mistake, as the correct category should be Gualdrada Berti PGS 1984 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Equestrian statue of Simón Bolívar (Buenos Aires)

Empty category, all files were deleted for alleged copyright violation. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 12:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Chapati

Merge to Category:Roti. The distinction between "roti" and "chapati" is confusing even to Indians, and the respective Wikipedia articles call themselves as synonyms of another article (like "Roti (also known as chapati)" and "Chapati, also known as roti,"). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has separate articles for the two, and roti (Q2204450) and chapati (Q752006) in Wikidata; I'm hesitant to go against that. Perhaps a "see also" link? Omphalographer (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: I have already mentioned that there are two separate articles in English Wikipedia. However, both articles call the other as alias. For example, roti starts with "Roti (also known as chapati)", and chapati starts with "Chapati, also known as roti,". Not only that, but maintaining the two categories on Indian flatbreads with almost the same meaning risks confusion even among Indians. So, I like to merge Category:Chapati to Category:Roti to avoid the confusion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Entonces habrá que hacer lo mismo en Wikipedias, no? 186.175.244.116 14:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it should be, as I still can't see the difference between roti and chapati by reading the respective Wikipedia articles. But that's something to be done in Wikipedia. For now, we should merge the Commons category Category:Chapati to Category:Roti. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Office supply shops

This tree is part of a shit-ton of barely-populated categories created last month by Engineerchange. They evidently didn't notice that it duplicates Category:Office supply stores and subcats, a tree which has existed for over eight years. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: Happy to have a discussion on moving this to a more appropriate categorization. The distinction between "shops" and "stores" was/is not a standard, in fact Category:Stores redirects to Category:Shops, so I hope you can understand how a new editor to this space can be confused. For instance, Category:Shops by type is rather extensive and the vast majority (>60) use "shop" vs. a minority (17) use "store". Not sure why the obscenity is necessary here, but I'm happy to help address anyway I can. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
If you're going to contribute so extensively to this site, you should also be willing to be a part of the community. There were a series of categorization-related discussions on COM:VP not that long ago. The sense of the community is that we should not be creating categories for only one or two files. The primary purpose of categories is navigation. Such categories hinder rather than help navigation. Without picking over every single thing, it appears to be a staggering number of categories created for some other reason than segregating content to enable effective navigation (19 of the 33 cats I tagged for this CFD consist of a single entry). Also, going over the respective trees, I see Category:Office supply shops in Texas, which doesn't include File:McKinney April 2017 028 (Enquirer Building).jpg (categorized in the other tree). Why are only chains categorized in this tree? It suggests that they're somehow buying exposure on this site, even if implicitly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS: I've uploaded thousands of photos to this site and added hundreds of articles to the English Wikipedia. I apologize for missing a COM:VP topic, but I think it's unfair to not assume good faith of me here. My intention was to assist categorization at the state level, not just the shop (store) type level. With dozens of images in categories like Category:Shops in California, this was my attempt at starting some more structure in that context. I think there are other categories that don't need to be so narrow, like Category:Interiors of office supply stores that can operate alongside these. And yes, I started with the chains because they were easier. It's not as easy as searching "office supply" to find all relevant stores in this context. Expecting one user to do it all is not really in the spirit of the community. And, I can definitely see your point, only doing chain stores can send the wrong message, and I don't mean to look like a big office supply shop shell, by any means. Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Church memorials

Is this the same as Category:Church monuments and could be merged, or would something like Category:Memorials of churches be more fitting? Mike Peel (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment — I think "church memorials" is broader than "church monuments", because monuments are structures erected specifically as memorials, while memorials can also include coins, personal belongings, or even eponymous places. So, Category:Church monuments can come under Category:Church memorials. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

=== Please note that in Category:Church memorials in Finland, the object of memorizing are the churches, while the other categories contain 'monuments' or 'memorials' in churches as far as I can see it. Should there be a category Category:Monuments and memorials to churches?

Category:Palico-Balayan-Batangas Road (Taal segment)

This is to be replaced in favor of the actual names of most parts of the segment: Category:Calle Marcela Mariño Agoncillo and Category:Calle Jose Rizal (Taal, Batangas). There is no use to split N436 highway into segments based on town locations, as the highway segments in each town consist of different streets, and not all of the component streets are entirely part of the highway network (for example, N436 also passes through Taal's Calle Jose Rizal, but not every length of the said street is part of the N436 network). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Covered passageways

I don't see a difference between Category:Covered passageways and Category:Covered walkways. Suggest upmerge to Category:Covered walkways. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: What if they can accommodate vehicles? - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm... Currently, Category:Covered passageways is a sub-category of Category:Covered walkways, which suggests to me they are both for people, not vehicles. I guess that could be inverted, and Category:Covered passageways could be used to include both? But Category:Passageways is itself a subcategory of Category:Walkways, so that would need to be changed as well. I'm not totally sure of the usefulness of Category:Passageways. Aren't all roads (and even canals) examples of "uncovered passageways" that are open to vehicles? Merriam Webster says "a way that allows passage" and defines passage as "a way of exit or entrance : a road, path, channel, or course by which something passes" with the example sentences "Special ships clear passages through the ice." and "nasal passages." -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for those suggestions. That definition seems to imply that all content in the category passageways should probably be moved to other categories with a more specific scope.
Also, what is the difference between a covered walkway and an exterior corridor?
KaiKemmann (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Advertising by type

Isn't Category:Advertising by type redundant with Category:Advertising by medium? -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Social instruction

Move to Category:Social advertising in China to match parent? -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:1886 establishments in Kansas

 Delete Category is empty and there is no possible parent category, like Category:Establishments in Kansas by year Mikinisk (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Social advertising

How is Category:Social advertising different from Category:Social marketing? -- Themightyquill (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

In general: w:en:Marketing is a broader term/concept than w:en:Advertising. In this case:
I think both categories should:
  • get good descriptions, showing the differences
  • be judged whether the subcategories and files comply with the descriptions; if necessary: move them from one to the other.
JopkeB (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biodiversity park

This category has a single image of a Biodiversity Park in India. It can be renamed as "Category: Ambivli Biodiversity Park" and made a sub-category under "Category: Nature parks in India" Shankar Raman (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Oceans and seas

I had created this union category to club the categories using "oceans and seas" or its variations. But I think this union category does not make sense, and I think these categories should be at least renamed to Category:Saline bodies of water or Category:Saline waterbodies converted into dab pages. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I've also created Category:World Ocean to cover the general aspect of "the ocean" or "the sea", with the categories Category:Oceans and Category:Seas being restricted to specific subdivisions of the World Ocean. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I would say "Oceans" should be a sub category of "Seas" so we probably don't need this category or as noted it could be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
    Putting Category:Oceans under Category:Seas is a better compromise, and also consistent with many Asian languages where an "ocean" is a "great sea" (মহাসাগর in Bengali, महासागर in Hindi, 大海 in Chinese/Japanese). Also, seas that are not oceans can be categorized under Category:Marginal seas (excluding Category:Sargasso Sea, which is not a marginal sea by definition). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Indian Ocean

Useless category with only two images. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:North Indian Ocean

Are there media files related to the whole North Indian Ocean, or is North Indian Ocean just a regional grouping? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:History of nature

What's the distinction between Category:History of nature and Category:Natural history? I know that "natural history" once referred to what we now call "biology", but the term currently refers to the history of the natural world instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep it is different.
"natural history" is a sub-discipline of science or areas of knowledge in the natural sciences.
"History of nature" is not limited. History of all areas of nature. It affects the entire history of nature. In commons e.g. nature by year (past, present, future).
Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 22:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep per above. For some reason the EN WP article makes it seem like this is about organisms while the German article finds it's also about environments themselves (not just as the environment of organisms) including mineralogy, partly geology, etc. Somebody knows more or should the ENWP article be edited? Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau by condition

This category should be deleted and its only content Category:Former municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau should be upmoved; I do not see any useful point in this by condition metacat. Kleeblatt187 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a lifecycle metacat. Other useful children of this category (currently not used, but not implausible) are, for example:
  • Proposed municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
  • Abandoned municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
  • Devastated municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
  • Merged municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
Former is vague about its cause, it may make sense to split this, or create sub-categories below. For instance, a municipality may be former in the sense that it has been devastated (by mining or a natural accident) or in a political sense that it has lost its status to a new or another entity, either by a merger or, by public or parliament (vote) to switch state or districts, see for example de:Kreis Altenburg#Geschichte, last section.
I agree that it currently looks humble to have a single category as child, but its absolutely feasible for other peer categories to appear and express lifecycle different, in more specific or similar circumstances as the Former category does now in a general form. Cmuelle8 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
This is quite a theoretical approach, quite far away from „real life“. Proposed muinicipalities is not a category to expect enough content to justify the category. Merged municipalities is not useful for commons either. This may be a good idea for a list article at wikipedia, but not as a category tree here. And abandoned and devastated is pure nonsense as far as municipalities are concerned. Villages and other places may be abandoned and/or devastated, but not municipalities. Municipalities get disolved or merged – but both cases do not justify this kind of category tree. Fine enough to collect them at Former municipalities of ... We shouldn't complicate commons with hypothetical and untypical intermediate metacats.  Delete --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:La Consolacion University Philippines

All of the photos here on this category are failed on Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. All of the structures buildings and statues are unkown if this have permission to upload this. Royiswariii Talk! 01:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, it seems creating as a personal space and does not contributing some photos in en.wiki at all. Royiswariii Talk! 01:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Royiswariii categories for discussion is used to discuss the usefulness of the category itself, not of the files within. Kindly nominate files themselves that you feel contain unfree artworks and architectures. Thanks, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep, wrong venue, Royiswariii 😅 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree, it has an article on Wikipedia so it likely to be considered notable enough for a category here so unless all the files get deleted (which would be at deletion requests not here) then its likely we should keep this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures in the round by Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen in Statens Museum for Kunst

Listed below are 12 categories named "Sculptures in the round by <artist> in Statens Museum for Kunst". These categories seem to be the only ones that use the "in the round" terminology. The highest number of entries in any of them is 3.

I propose eliminating these categories. Disposition of the contents would depend on whether there is a general category for the artist's sculptures in the Statens Museum for Kunst.

  • If there is, entries could be moved there.
  • If there isn't, the "in the round" category could be renamed to "Sculptures by <artist> in Statens Museum for Kunst".

Category list:

These categories each have one empty category redirecting to them that would also need to be deleted. Those categories are named the same except that the word "the" is inserted before the word "Statens". You can see all the categories here. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what it means: "in the round" or "Sculptures in the round". Is it a room in Statens Museum? I never saw this kind of category. If there does not exist a worldwide parent category for 'Sculptures in the round' it seems a mistake to me to use it on a local level. Also: Thanks for the efforts to delete or redirect all those cats with "in the Statens Museum". This doubling is a source of irritation in many artists categories. Although I usually make a redirect out of them, I propose to delete all of them in the end, because it only causes confusion to have two options in tools like Cat-a-Lot, and Hotcat. But since this is not my terrain of choice, I feel that deleting these is not my job, plus it would need a special procedure with assistence by an admin to do it. So it can better be done in a request for mass deletion, once all of the files are moved to the right cats. Peli (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Pelikana: English Wikipedia says that a sculpture in the round is a sculpture that is free-standing, as opposed to a relief or something that is mounted to a surface. Most sculpture categories I have seen have subcategories for busts, reliefs, and statues, but not "in the round".
I'll respond to your other comments on your talk page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi. Agree to this proposal. And thanks for your great work on managing all those categories. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Belize by year

There are only a few dozen maps of Belize on Commons, not enough to justify sorting by year. They are currently sorted by decade which works well. Also, it just doesn't make sense to sort older maps by year, since many older maps are just touched up copies of earlier maps and the production cycles for old maps took multiple years anyway. Sorting by decade makes a lot more sense, especially when there aren't that many maps, as is the case here. Nosferattus (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
We also won't need Template:MapsBelize if this category is deleted. Nosferattus (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Broichmore, Adamant1, Omphalographer, Prototyperspective, Pi.1415926535, DarwIn, Enyavar, Jheald, LPfi, and Mike Peel: Another category by year debate. Copying the ping list from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Maps of California by year. Nosferattus (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support. I was the one who upmerged most of Belize maps to their respective decades just based on the previous talks on the village pump; but given how there are a thousandfold more US maps around, I wanted to make the stand about "location before year" on the example of California before getting constant challenges. --Enyavar (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support per the arguments presented above.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support Per the reasons given. Organizing maps by decade makes a lot more sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a comment but it's impossible and frankly pointless to even start a discussion if people are just going to gut the folder on the basis so that you can argue for the empty category - no one is going to reverse it all if the votes are in opposition. It's moot at this point so it should just be closed with the category and template deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the category has always been mostly empty or at least it was before Nosferattus nominated it for discussion. To quote Nosferattus, "they are currently sorted by decade." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: The category was already gutted (see Enyavar's comment above) and no one has argued that it should be deleted because it is empty. Frankly I don't care if the category is deleted or not. What I created this discussion for is to see if there is consensus to keep Belizean maps sorted by decade, as this is not the typical method. If there is consensus, I would like to look into sorting other categories for small and obscure places in a similar manner, i.e. places that have dozens of maps rather than hundreds or thousands. Personally, I think the idea of sorting all map categories by year is a bad idea, but we need some discussions and precedents to establish other options, as thus far, sorting by year has been the default applied everywhere. Nosferattus (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Nosferattus Again, this discussion is moot. You may as well speedy the template as unused and then speedy the category as unused. This isn't the first time that someone has done the "empty category, speedy template, speedy category" routine and then started a 'discussion' with nothing to see. If you want a discussion, then let a discussion flow rather than pining specific people who immediately vote support after the category is empty. If you have a serious view, nominate a hard case like the Category:1860s maps of Virginia instead of picking easy examples that have been gutted already to build up a 'consensus' that doesn't actually exist. Delete category as moot and unnecessary because there aren't that many Belize maps right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I nominated both for speedy deletion. This obviously has enough support for that. Someone should close it after they are deleted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:PNG by subject

 Delete the whole tree as underutilized. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support. This is not at all a useful way of organizing files. In the unlikely circumstance that a user needs a file of a particular format, Special:Search can find them (e.g. by searching for "people filemime:image/png"); manually placing files into a parallel category system based on their type is an exceptionally poor use of time. Omphalographer (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Food texts, diagrams and posters

Needless union category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Library Primer

seems to be the same as Category:Library Primer Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment - it's literally the same category. Did you mean to nominate Category:A Library Primer, or to compare the two? Omphalographer (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I think they should be merged. Not sure which title is best. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Crane logo is above TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Continents by country

What's this? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of the categories you've nominated today are being added to categories by {{Double metacat}}, or are the fallout of attempting to categorize the nonsense categories it too often creates. Most, if not all, of them should be deleted; if that means that {{Double metacat}} leaves some redlinks to nonsense parent cats, so be it - it's better to leave those as redlinks than to create them. There's some recent discussion of this template and its problems at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/01#Problems with Double MetaCat template. Omphalographer (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by city by country

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by district by country

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by municipality by country

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by state by country

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Electricity pylons by state.

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: It seems to be to collect categories for various topics by first-level country subdivisions, but only where those subdivisions are called states. I don't think it's helpful to include only selected countries. I'd suggest a category like this for all first-level subdivisions, but the topics here are so varied that I don't know if that would be useful. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by genre

Do countries have genre? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by function

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by country

Unless you're talking about Category:Constituent countries within sovereign states, this is an utter nonsense category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries by topic by country

What's the purpose of this category? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books about World War I

Subdividing by language is okay; but the second major subdivision of the WW1 topic should be by book topic; I think subcategories of the topic "by publication year" should be abolished.

It makes a lot of sense to connect publication dates and publication location (as in Category:1920 books from London), but I see no benefit in combining the publication year and the topic in a category name.

After we subdivided all these books by year (and some also by language), we can no longer comfortably subdivide the entire pool again, this time by topic as well. When browsing, I noticed:

  • 1919 book=1920 book=1926 book (books about the history of specific regiments in WW1 would belong into the same category)
  • 1928 book=1919 book=1917 book (personal war testimonials/memoirs would belong into the same category)
  • 1919 book=1920 book=1923 book (books about naval warfare in WW1 would belong into the same category).
  • ... other subtopics as well, such as field medicine; books about East Front; books about West Front; as well as overview works and picture books. Some books combine several topics.

By contrast, the by-year subcategories about WW1 books seem fully arbitrary, depending how quickly an author was able to research, write and publish their own book after the war broke out. Enyavar (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 and AnRo0002: - Since you're currently active in moving <year-book-by-topic>, I'm curious to learn about what benefits you see in those groupings. --Enyavar (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in the Pauline tradition

correct or not title? The topic in English is called en:Pauline Family, the same in Italian it:Famiglia Paolina, in French Fr:Famille paulinienne and also cs:Paulínská rodina. So I can't understand why the category should be Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in the Pauline tradition, for me it's a nonsense. Also this is commons, a image/file repository, it's not the place to decide what something is. If all wikies call it Pauline Family, it's logical to call it Pauline Family also here. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the Pauline Family a Catholic order or society? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
it doesn't matter when we are talking about the title. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. We are discussing categories so navigational precision is important. Please answer the question. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
this category is already included in Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies, so the "navigational precision" is already provided. As you can easily see the other categories already included in Category:Roman_Catholic_orders_and_societies do NOT have title including these words "Roman Catholic orders and societies" or similar. Just some examples Category:Rosminians Category:Famille de Saint-Joseph Category:Albertine Brothers. The categories usually have the title that the topic has in English wikipedia and, in my opinion, it's the olny logical and correct choiche. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Your interaction style is quite combative. A collaborative style is better for all. Please assume WP:GoodFaith in your dealings. What is the relationship, if any, between this Family and the Society of Saint Paul? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not combative or something else, I'm just trying to understand why we should not use the standard for this category's title, according it to something depending on the Canon law or something like this, and not according to the commons standard title. By the way yesterday I check all the categories in Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies: almost all of them have the same title of article in the English wikipedia, someone has the title in French, Spanish, German or Italian. The question remains the same: "which are the motivation to have Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in the Pauline tradition instead of Category:Pauline Family like in en:Category:Pauline Family? P.S. The question Society of Saint Paul is offtopic here. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Still quite combative. Anyway. Is the Society of Saint Paul in the Pauline tradition? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Why did you move the category? Can you give an explanation? I will answer olny to question about the category's title. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm appalled at your behaviour here. Nevertheless I will explain my actions. We have established that the Pauline Family is a Roman Catholic order or society. I am now trying to uncover if it is also in the Pauline tradition. If it is, then the "tradition" category would be appropriate. Otherwise it might not be appropriate. This could arise if the name is simply a coincidence. Please reply with as much good grace as you can muster. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
You didn't answer to my simple question. I didn't established that the "Pauline Family is a Roman Catholic order or society", probably is true but in my opinion is not very relevant to choose the category's title. P.S.Are you sure that is useful to solve the question write sentences like these "I'm appalled at your behaviour here", "Your interaction style is quite combative"? and " Please assume WP:GoodFaith in your dealings". Anyway is not important to answer to the last question. I just want to know the reason to change the title from Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in the Pauline tradition instead of Category:Pauline Family like in en:Category:Pauline Family?
I think that I've grasped the situation now. The Pauline Family is not, per se, a Roman Catholic order or society. Rather, the term is used , anecdotally or otherwise, to describe a loose association of Roman Catholic societies and institutes. It would appear that the only thing that they have in common is that they were all founded by the same man. This category may therefore be deleted. It remains to be seen if "associated with.." is sufficient grounds for retaining the Pauline Family category itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sisters duos

This should be merged with Category:Sister duos. StarTrekker (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support. Let's not keep this duo of categories apart any longer. :) Omphalographer (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Meteorological phenomena

What's the disinction between Category:Meteorological phenomena and Category:Weather phenomena? I think the former should be downmerged to the latter, as meteorology is basically the study of weather. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep as is. Meteorology is about atmospheric sciences and there are several natural phenomena that are in the atmosphere but not weather. Just look at the subcats, for example Polar aurora isn't weather. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Just look at the subcats, for example Polar aurora isn't weather.

Polar aurora is indeed a weather phenomenon. The article space weather says (emphasis is mine), "A variety of physical phenomena is associated with space weather, including geomagnetic storms and substorms, energization of the Van Allen radiation belts, ionospheric disturbances and scintillation of satellite-to-ground radio signals and long-range radar signals, aurorae, and geomagnetically induced currents at Earth's surface." Also, meteorology is "a branch of the atmospheric sciences (which include atmospheric chemistry and physics) with a major focus on weather forecasting" and "[m]eteorological phenomena are observable weather events that are explained by the science of meteorology." Since almost all weather phenomena are explainable through meteorology, there's no point of having separate categories for meteorological phenomena that are not weather phenomena (or vice versa). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I know it's related to space weather but whether space whether is weather in the normal sense is I think debatable. Category:Space weather is not in the weather cat and since there are other phenomena that aren't weather but meteorological phenomena anyway, the cat should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
And again, look at the subcats – for example Evaporation is not yet a weather phenomenon...it's a process that affects weather phenomena. Go through the Wikipedia categories, I couldn't find cat Weather above it. @Vsmith, GregRM, and Vgranucci: you edited that article. @Runningonbrains and Jagged 85: you edited the Meteorology article. Maybe you can weigh in. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Personally, for the categories you guys are discussing I'd go with something like Category:Space phenomena. It's not really worth getting into a discussion about what makes something "weather" or not at this level. But I will point out that the definition of meteorology is "the study of the Earth's atmosphere and how it affects weather." The "earth's atmosphere" obviously doesn't exist in outer space. Meaning, anything having to do with "space weather" inherently can't be a sub-category of (or in a sub-category having to do with) this one. I think we can all agree that solar storms are "space phenomena" though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete Totally redundant. Per Google's definition of meteorological "relating to the branch of science concerned with the processes and phenomena of the atmosphere, especially as a means of forecasting the weather." Its still not worth having the category if like %1 of it involves other things. All scientific fields have some overlap with related fields. I don't think anyone would advocate for creating specific "phenomena" categories in those or any other instance though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
BTW, there's also already Category:Meteorological theory which seems to have some overlap with this along with the regular categories for meteorology and weather. I'd probably get rid of that category to, but there's point in having 4 categories that essentially serve the same purpose. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
 Keep for the reason as Jmabel. For instance, Atmospheric optical phenomena and propagation of EM waves are meteorological/atmospheric phenomena but not related to weather. Pierre cb (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena is already in 5 categories for atmospheric phenomena. Having it in this category along with them is totally pointless and redundant to an extreme degree. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children-in-law of Joseph P. Kennedy II and Sheila Rauch

There is no need for this category. Wikidata already allows easy linkage with relatives. StarTrekker (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support. There's a whole nest of these under e.g. Category:Kennedy family (not including the main category), and they should all be deleted. Representing this type of relationship is a task which Commons categories are extraordinarily poorly suited for, and which provides virtually no value on this site. Omphalographer (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children of Joseph P. Kennedy II and Sheila Rauch

There is no need for this category. Wikidata already allows easy linkage with relatives. Only one child here and a category for said child's spouse StarTrekker (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Epipactis helleborine - leaves by date

This CFD is for the following three categories:

These categories contains files whose names start with dates (for example, File:20230707Epipactis helleborine4.jpg), so that they sort in date order. However, categories with "by date" in their names are usually metacategories that contains subcategories related to time. In fact, a metacat template was added to the Neottia category, even though there are no subcategories.

Organizing files by date without using any categories is better done with a gallery. I propose upmerging these categories. If desired, equivalent galleries could be created. I'm not sure how much value galleries would have, though, since only selected files (those with dates in their names) are included. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete “By date” means that it is a meta category with corresponding directories. Relying on file names having to adhere to a specific format contradicts our guidelines. --XRay 💬 10:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Müezzin mahfili

The same thing of "Dikkas" this one is the turkish name; and Dikkas is in "Arabic" Sandra Hanbo (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I produced many more Turkish pictures than I see Arabic ones in this category. As a matter of fact I just read the Arabic word for the first time. As long as the Turkish name remains easy to find I do not much care. I will keep using Turkish names.

I checked how dikka is described in several Wikipedias of which I know the language. A müezzin mahfili is one of raised platforms. When housing dignitaries Turkish uses another name. I wonder if that precisely overlaps dikka. Dosseman (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cephalanthera longifolia - flowers by date

This CFD is for the following categories:

These categories contains files whose names start with dates (for example, File:20230707Epipactis helleborine4.jpg), so that they sort in date order. However, categories with "by date" in their names are usually metacategories that contains subcategories related to time. In fact, a metacat template was added to some of them, even though there are no subcategories.

Organizing files by date without using any categories is better done with a gallery. I propose upmerging these categories. If desired, equivalent galleries could be created. I'm not sure how much value galleries would have, though, since only selected files (those with dates in their names) are included.

I would have included these in the "leaves by date" discussion, but I did't see them until later. Auntof6 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Human genitalia

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity.

 Rename to Category:Adult human genitalia to make it clear that we're not covering human genitalia of all ages due to legal restrictions within Wikimedia. Similarly,

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging participants from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude teenagers: @Brianjd, Joshbaumgartner, Omphalographer, TwoWings, Dronebogus, Trade, Rhododendrites, Infrogmation, G.dallorto, Dispe, and Jmabel: . Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Defeats the purpose if Category:Nude teenagers is allowed to exist Trade (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Trade: This category is for media files specifically intended to show human genitalia, and the CFD on Category:Nude teenagers is intended to address the problems with the media files intended to show juvenile human genitalia. Since it is clear that we cannot host the media files of juvenile human genitalia due to legal restrictions, we have to make it clear through category names. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • 1. - this is HUMAN ANATOMY not porn. so stop with the prudish/paranoid/whatever hyper-censorship thing please?
  • 2. - in fact, OLD historic pictures of naked ppl under 18 ARE legal. we had this discussion on commons... ~ 10-15 years ago? so in fact there ARE legal, useable pictures for ALL STAGES of human development. which is actually KIND OF USEFUL if you are into the whole science & education "thing" (as per commons/wikipedia/wikimedia scope). if your imaginary god/gods-'s moral code has problems with that, please take it up with him/her/them?

& WHY are we having this stupid debate AGAIN for the X-th time?

also your sense of the english language is a little defective there; the existing terms are MORE PRECISE in scientific>biological term, WHICH IS THE POINT of this categorisation. (& they are also slightly more socio-politically neutral). this is not "simple english wikimedia commons. WMC POLICY on categorisation clearly states that clarity & disambiguation are the priorities. viz. - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle

Lx 121 (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121: Your comment is somewhat uncivil; I suggest you tone it down a bit. This category is not about naked people; it is about genitalia specifically. Brianjd (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • even more reason to specify HUMAN as opposed EVERY OTHER species that has genitalia (WHICH we actually discussed back around the time these categories were CREATED in the first place). AND categorise by age/stage of development. Lx 121 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The renaming idea is a good in principle. I supported it at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, which seems clear-cut: minors are simply never allowed in categories like that. Categories like this are a bit different: for example, at the nude teenagers discussion, I cited articles by The Guardian and The New York Times about images of toddlers’ penises being used for medical purposes. I’m still not sure what to think about this, except that we should not make false accusations against users the way Google did. Brianjd (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES - & what about "NON-HUMAN PERSONS"? even within commons scope there are ENDLESS possibilities for "persons" who are not human. from anime/manga, (furries?,) fiction, hypothetical extraterrestrials, legal entities, animal rights, etc....
aside from the fact that switching from "human" to "people" amounts to "DUMBING DOWN" (which is NOT wmc policy viz. - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle) what is primarily a HUMAN BIOLOGY categorisation, changing it to "people" is also imprecise & ambiguous terminology. Lx 121 (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose. I don't think the qualification "adult" in "adult human genitalia" is necessary, especially when there's not going to be another category it needs to be contrasted with. Disclaimers don't belong in category names; it would be ridiculous to rename Category:Human sexual activity to "Human sexual activity between consenting adults who have agreed to be recorded", for instance.
"Men's / Women's genitalia", on the other hand, is just awkward - we don't typically use possessives in other category names, and I don't think this is a good place to start. Omphalographer (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: While rediscovering the older sexual activity discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, I see that Joshbaumgartner supported "adult humans" instead of "people" as he finds it as the "best implementation" of the Selectivity Principle, which says "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." Additionally, I think if the categories restricted to adults are named just "people" instead of "adult people", such categories would make the users think that children are also allowed here like how nude people and adult sexual media are allowed here, as we are more liberal than many platforms, and indeed many countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: I consider the word ‘adult’ (or lack of) to be one of the structural reasons you refer to at Special:Diff/992558527. This line of reasoning seems to have some support from other users, per Sbb1413’s reply.
This isn’t a disclaimer; I don’t know what you mean by that. Consent status is ‘non-topical’ (note that Consent tracking and subcategories are hidden) and therefore a poor example here. Brianjd (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
This wouldn’t be the start of possessives in cateogry names: we already have Children's body, Girls' body, Boys' body, Women's body and Men's body and subcategories, along with categories of a different nature (such as Children's sports). In fact, Adult human body seems to be an anomaly. Brianjd (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree, but I think Category:Adult human body is not an anomaly, rather it is named to distinguish it from adult (or fully-grown) bodies of other organisms (animals, plants, fungi). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pubic hair

Same rationale as Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Human genitalia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by stage of development

RESTORE proper naming schema. 'HUMANS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT Lx 121 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

somehow this little rename slipped past me. if i had seen it at the time, i would most emphatically have opposed the change.

PROPOSAL: restore the category name to "Humans by stage of development".

  • 1st - because the primary purpose of the category is educational, esp. human biology & anthropology in general, & therefore we should be using the most correct, precise terminology for that.
  • 2nd - because, obvious point, NOT ALL "PEOPLE" ARE HUMAN. even WITHIN the scope of wmc categorisations, there are plenty of "non-human persons" included. fictional characters, anthopomorphised-whatevers, legal persons, hypothetical extraterrestrials, a.i.'s, etc. (not to mention animal rights activists/opinions) NONE OF WHICH belong in "humans by stage of development".

this is not "simple english wikimedia commons". users are expected to have basic competence in standard english. there are many other language options on here, for those who do not.

WMC POLICY on categorisation clearly states that clarity & disambiguation are the priorities. viz. - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle

Lx 121 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  • and for pity's sake, switch "teenager" back to "adolescent". again, BIOLOGY & stages of development, not "simple english".

Lx 121 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121:

1st - because the primary purpose of the category is educational, esp. human biology & anthropology in general, & therefore we should be using the most correct, precise terminology for that.

Of course, correct and well-used terms should be there instead of ambiguous ones, and the term "people" is commonly used in anthropology to describe certain groups of humans. In Commons, it is common to use "people" instead of "humans", and we use "human" as an adjective instead.

2nd - because, obvious point, NOT ALL "PEOPLE" ARE HUMAN. even WITHIN the scope of wmc categorisations, there are plenty of "non-human persons" included. fictional characters, anthopomorphised-whatevers, legal persons, hypothetical extraterrestrials, a.i.'s, etc. (not to mention animal rights activists/opinions) NONE OF WHICH belong in "humans by stage of development".

I'm not going to repeat my arguments that I made at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:People by age, as the same applies there would apply here. In short, the category name uses "people" and not "persons", and "people" refers to only humans.

this is not "simple english wikimedia commons". users are expected to have basic competence in standard english. there are many other language options on here, for those who do not.

I think you're trying to repeat Brianjd's comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude teenagers, who says "This is not the ‘English Wikimedia Commons’ either. This is explicitly a multilingual project, and all users (including those not blessed with a native understanding of English) are welcome to comment on categories." However, he does not say that users should have basic competence in English, and although I'm sort of fluent in English, I often like to navigate Commons in my own native language (Bengali).

WMC POLICY on categorisation clearly states that clarity & disambiguation are the priorities. viz. - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle

The Selectivity Principle states, "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." Considering this principle, "people" is indeed unambiguous (refers to a collection of humans) and not homonymous (there are no other words with similar spelling and/or pronunciation). Not only that, Category:People covers a single topic (people) and not multiple topics.

and for pity's sake, switch "teenager" back to "adolescent". again, BIOLOGY & stages of development, not "simple english".

I don't know what you are saying, but Category:Adolescents is recently created as a category for a human stage of development, separate from Category:Teenagers (an age cohort with mainly socio-cultural significance). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
With regards to the last, I'd add that "teenagers" is a rather English-specific term, as it hinges on the names of the numbers 13 through 19 (thirTEEN, nineTEEN). It doesn't translate well. Omphalographer (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
If "people" are to be used there is now more ambiguity than before. That's actually a valid and underconsidered point. I think one should specify somewhere clearly that with people WMC refers to humans and/or add a category description to these cats that uses that word. Regarding Lx 121's 2nd point – there's also fictional humans and even hypothetical advanced AIs are not people. --Prototyperspective (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by age

HUMAN BIOLOGY category; sloppy imprecise rename. Lx 121 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

this was VERY poorly though out rename, that slipped through with ALMOST NO discussion.

the primary purpose of this categorisation schema is HUMAN BIOLOGY & not all PERSONS are HUMAN.

even within wmc scope, there are MANY "non-human persons". i.e.: fictional characters, athropomorphised-whatevers, hypothetical extraterrestrials, a.i., legal persons, & animal rights matters. NONE OF WHICH belong in the HUMAN BIOLOGY categories.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121: Actually, the problem lies in the plural forms of "person". The plural form "people" refers to only humans while the plural form "persons" can also refer to legal persons like companies. Since the main category is named Category:People and not "persons", we can safely exclude the "non-human persons" you're talking about. Let me counterargue the "non-human persons" stuff:
  • "fictional characters" — Category:Fictional characters is erroneously put under "people", as it also includes fictional non-humans.
  • "athropomorphised-whatevers" (sic) — there's nothing wrong to categorize anthropomorphized stuff under humans/people, as they are depictions of humans (like paintings, lithographs, photos, videos).
  • "hypothetical extraterrestrials" — Category:Aliens in art are well-known examples of fictional non-human characters, and the category is thus properly categorized under Category:Organisms in art rather than Category:People in art.
  • "a.i." — Category:Artificial intelligence (AI) is by definition not a human, and it is categorized as such. However, AI can be considered a "legal person", but that's another thing (see below).
  • "legal persons" — Legal persons are not under the scope of Category:People, and legal persons like Category:Companies don't come under Category:People but under Category:Organizations or something else.
  • "animal rights matters" — I don't understand what you mean by this, but animal rights activists are all humans so far.
To sum it up, unless you want to establish separate category trees for Category:Homo sapiens (humans) and Category:People (individual humans), there's nothing wrong to use "people" and not humans for the sake of consistency across Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
"to sum it up" - you acknowledge the validity of the problem, then suggest that we COMPLETELY IGNORE IT. people & human are NOT SYNONYMS, & commons policy prioritises disambiguity/specificity as per Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle.
HUMAN is the most concise species-specific term that is unambiguous on this point. "people" is NOT species-specific. your arguement on the full length "homo sapiens" is tangential. the rest of your arguements mostly fall under the category of "ignoring the problem". hypothetically any sentient beings whether AI, extraterrestrial, or etc. REAL or FICTIONAL could fall within the definitions of both "people" & "person", but they would not be "human".
'Actually, the problem lies in the plural forms of "person". The plural form "people" refers to only humans while the plural form "persons" can also refer to legal persons like companies.' -- ACTUALLY NO, your understanding of english is incorrect on this point. "people" would still apply as a plural for non-human persons. if we imagine (or simply borrow from existing fiction) a scenario of non-human persons; aliens, ai, anthopomorphised beings, etc., they could still be considered as "people" when spoken of in the plural.
'"fictional characters" — Category:Fictional characters is erroneously put under "people", as it also includes fictional non-humans.' -- wrong, the categorisation under people IS correct, your understanding of english, respectfully, is not.
'"hypothetical extraterrestrials" — Category:Aliens in art are well-known examples of fictional non-human characters, and the category is thus properly categorized under Category:Organisms in art rather than Category:People in art.' - wrong; & clearly you DO NOT fully understand the definition of "organism". "beings" or "sentient beings" might be alternative terms, but "organisms" literally covers ANY LIFEFORM; which is fine as a general category but FAILS TO DIFFERENTIATE anything like "sentient" from "non-sentient", or even "plant" from "animal" or "fungus", etc.
'"legal persons" — Legal persons are not under the scope of Category:People, and legal persons like Category:Companies don't come under Category:People but under Category:Organizations or something else.' - wrong; both on the basic english definitions AND on points of the law. in the united states right now the degree to which personal rights under the law should apply to "legal persons" like corporations is VERY MUCH in question & "in play". whatever one's opinion is on the matter, the issues fall within commons' scope of coverage, & is NOT ignorable as you suggest. AND there are all sorts of different types of "legal persons", NOT JUST corporations. "legal personhood" is a complex concept; which covers BOTH human & non-human "persons" as far as matters of law are concerned.
'"athropomorphised-whatevers" (sic) — there's nothing wrong to categorize anthropomorphized stuff under humans/people, as they are depictions of humans (like paintings, lithographs, photos, videos).' -- VERY WRONG; clearly, you do not even understand what the term "anthropomorphised" means. please go & look it up, before having any more opinions on this point?
you also made an error of grammar in that line of your counter-arguement here: 'there's nothing wrong to use "people" and not humans for the sake of consistency across Commons' - which again, respectfully, causes me to question your level of competence in the english language(?)
you do not even seem to be aware that there are some animal rights activists who argue for the "personhood" rights of non-human animal species; but that issue IS a topic which would fall within commons' SCOPE of coverage (again, whatever one's opinion on the matter might be).
just for fun & as an exercise in anthropology, you should go & research traditional japanese cultural views on personhood, & how it applies to non human entities.
the tl,dr - IS STILL that disambiguation is the priority for commons' categorisation schema. categories need to be CLEAR, PRECISE, & SPECIFIC. "human" is specific, & "people" is not. Lx 121 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:LGBT

Wouldn't it be better to use the name "LGBT+" instead of adding each letter one by one? Wieralee (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Rename all the subcats to "LGBT" in order to maintain the consistent naming. Yes, letters like Q, I, A are getting appended after "LGBT", and I see "LGBTQ" as equally popular as the original "LGBT". Regardless, I prefer "LGBT" here as it is the term we use almost universally across Wikimedia projects. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
 Support - what Sbb1413 said. While I recognize the desire to be inclusive, there's no clear consensus on what else should be included. (On the other hand, to forestall another discussion: yes, there is clear consensus that transgender people are included.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I did some research, and LGBT is still the most accepted term in academia. While LGBTQ has gained traction, LGBT remains the most widely used term. In Google Scholar, Academia.edu, and JSTOR, there are more results for LGBT than for LGBTQ. Terms with the "+" symbol have significantly fewer results. However, I think that we should follow the example of the Wikipedia project and at least use the "Q." But that is just my opinion, and the Commons:File naming policy states that we should choose a term that is clear and widely recognized, so it seems that it leans more toward the more popular term, which is LGBT. Nebula84912 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Let me cite many languages that either don't use L, G, or B: Hebrew, Welsh, Finnish, Greek, Esperanto, Ido, Tatar, Neo- and Dano- Norwegian, Swedish. and many wikis associated with these typically add adjacently or inherently the Q, the plus, almost always, along with Serbian (wiki-quote and -pedia), English (pedia), also or the A (Romenian).
the category item shows also huwiki, Cebuano (cebwiki), and ptwiki additionally different.
that said, I vote  Rename it into LGBTQ just to fulfill the gaps. Skemous (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
 Rename to LGBTQ per Wikimedia-related actions. Absolutiva (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support Also, the Swedish version HBTQ just uses H (homosexual) instead of LG. --Bücherfresser (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
 Rename to LGBTQ per Wikidata LGBTQ (Q17884). ClaudineChionh (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Male actors by production

Does anyone on Commons honestly find this type of categorization useful? Trade (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete this category along with Category:Actresses by production. I nowadays don't like the gender-based division of occupations in many aspects as it often creates redundancies. Simple English Wikipedia has gone further to even forbading users to create any gender-based category, and it has only "Men", "Women" and some other generic gender categories. While we don't have to go that far, we can at least eliminate the further diffusion of "second level" gender categories (the "first level" gender categories are Male people, Female people, Non-binary people, etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. The gender issue is a distraction; the real issue is that this is yet another subcategory of Category:Cast members (CfD), and it should be deleted with the rest. Information about who played what character in which production belongs in Wikidata, not in Commons categories. Omphalographer (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sports automobiles

Turning a move request by Andy Dingley into a CfD here, because I don't want a wheel war. I agree entirely with Andy's request that this be move back to "sports cars", which as far as I know is the common term for this in literally every English-speaking country. Google gives 66,500,000 hits for "sports car" vs. 346,000 for "sports automobile", a factor of nearly 200. Since this has twice been moved to what Andy and I both clearly consider the wrong name, I want an explicit decision here, rather than a continued fight. Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Strong oppose as long as the rule of {{Automobile}} is applicable throughout Commons, and Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Automobiles shows that many users still prefer status quo and even reject common alternatives like "motor cars", which is more unambiguous than simply "cars". Although the term "cars" nowadays unambiguously refer to automobiles, many users worry about the historical usage of the term for other land vehicles, especially as we host tons of historical images. Not only that, the existence of categories like Category:Sleeping cars (rail transport) proves that the term "cars" is not a reliable category name, and they often get moved to more unambiguous names (the aforesaid category is later unilaterally renamed to Category:Sleeping trains by Prototyperspective for being "incorrect", and that controversial renaming is under a separate discussion). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"Sleeping trains" should be moved back to "sleeping cars" for exactly the same reason this should be moved back to "sports cars": in both cases, this is simply what the thing is called. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Automobile}} allows for compound words; surely it should allow for compound phrases. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"Sports car" is technically a compound word - it's an open compound, just like "ice cream" or "high school". And it's no more sensible to replace "sports car" with "sports automobile" than it would be to replace "high school" with "high university" (for example). Omphalographer (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Omphalographer: The "compound words" clause in {{Automobile}} js added by me to take account of unavoidable terms like Category:Microcars. Otherwise, there's no consensus regarding compound words. I personally like to use "cars" throughout Commons as long as it refers to automobiles. However, I have to compromise with the current consensus that eschews that term in favour of "automobiles". So, you have categories like Category:Autonomous automobiles, Category:Electric automobiles or Category:Flying automobiles, but not "self-driving cars", "electric cars" or "flying cars". The latter are significantly more common than the former, but the current consensus doesn't allow them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like those either, but in none of those cases are we dealing with a term anywhere near as common as "sports car". - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Slavic gords

Redundant with Category:Gords, because a gord is by definition an "ancient Slavic" settlement. Should be upmerged into that category and/or diffused into its subcats under Category:Gords by country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sławobóg :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Ops, red this first as 'gods'. But hey, pinged user probably knows more about this then me anyway... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe that is because in Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian gord (in it's local forms) is still in use and means "city/town"? Also word "ancient" is used in some popular way, all secure gords are (early) medieval, ancient gords would be from Proto-Slavic times, before Slavs came to Central Europe. I'm not sure what to do with this. Sławobóg (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the present-day meaning of "gord" in Slavic languages should have anything to do with the definition of this category. All of these categories should of course only be about "gords" in the proper archaeological sense, i.e. the specifically early Slavic settlement type (with earthen/wooden ring walls and so on). I can't see any meaningful temporal cut-off point between "ancient" and other gords, nor does the main "gord" category currently support a temporal sub-division as in Category:Gords by period, for which "ancient Gords" could be a meaningful subcat. The banned POV-pusher who initially created and populated this cat seems to have used it for putting all sorts of entries in regardless of period, including fake entries about settlements from entirely different cultures (Celtic oppidum, neolithic settlements and whatnot). Best to just get rid of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought it could be the reason someone named this way, but now I see it was made by Kriestovo Nysian, a guy spreading Slavic pseudoscience I fought with before. I don't see any problems with changing/merging it to Category:Gords. Having Category:Gords by period/century would be good idea too. Sławobóg (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Decades by district

Hundreds of empty categories. Only content is a few entries for ancient history in Baden- Wuttemberg Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Grossly underutilized - there's a sum total of two files in this entire category hierarchy, both of which are covered adequately by other category systems - and it's unclear how "district" is meant to be interpreted in a global context. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete For all of the categories, including the few that have images since they aren't full enough to justify the categories to begin with. There's no point in having hundreds of empty categories just because a few of them have one or two images though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The idea of "district" does not work on a global basis. Rathfelder (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral The categories had thousands of entries. But an IP destroyed some templates on 30 september 2024. For example here removed the "YYYYs by district" in country-templates. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Later here the IP corrected it. But now "Districts in the YYYYs" instead of "YYYYs by district" before. So the Main-Category was empty after destructive changes. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Triplec85: I hope I didn't make things worse by deleting all the empty ones. (For reference, the deletes were done on 3 January between 1:19 and 1:28 UTC.) If so, and they need to be restored, let me know how I can help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: No. All fine. You didn't make a mistake. I'm neutral here. It now looks stupid when the category is empty. But I explained that an IP with template changes destroyed everything. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 22:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gothic jewellery

This category needs disambiguation and a split – about half of its current contents are related to medieval en:Gothic art, the other half are related to the art of the ancient en:Goths, two entirely different topics. I cannot figure out which of the two meanings was initially intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified armies

This is just a bad name. Army refers to a major group of soldiers, usually hundreds if not thousands. What we have here are photos of one or maybe several soldiers. Delete and upmerge Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Unidentified military people -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge - Per Auntof6 -- Deadstar (msg) 12:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified military

This does not sound good in English. I suggest renaming to Category:Unidentified topics related to military Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Some larger rethinking of the Category:Unidentified by topic hierarchy might be in order. My opinion is that there are far too many "unidentified" categories, often for bizarrely abstract topics like Category:Unidentified society or Category:Unidentified theoretical philosophy. The focus of these categories should be to have a couple of clearly distinguished "buckets" where users can place files of unclear significance - they should not aim to create an entire parallel ontology. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer True. The two examples you listed are pretty bizarre, as are some of the subcats in the society one. Some are pretty pointless. What is the difference between Category:Unidentified social history and Category:Social history? None. This is probably true for quite a few similar generic category, probably including the very one I nominated. But that's probably off topic here - but ping me if another discussion is started. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in Spain by city by autonomous community

This category, as well as the ones which fall under it, are not about 'cities', but about 'municipalities'. In many cases, there's no city in the whole of the municipality, only small populated places within it. There are many similar categories, such as 'Religious buildings in Spain by city' or 'Churches in Spain by city'. Alavense (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Up merging or otherwise removing the subcat and deleting the ones "by city." Assuming they are empty afterwards of course. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Arco de' Banchi

Street sign

I think this category should be renamed, please, to Category:Arco dei Banchi as shown on the street sign, in Wikidata and in the Swedish article. NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In fact, Arco dei Banchi seems to be the most common name. However, Arco de' Banchi is also used, as can be seen here. Pinging Lalupa as the user who created the category back in 2014 to have their comments as well. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Talk

What is the meaning of this category, how does it differ from more clearly defined categories like Category:Discussions, Category:Talking, Category:Speech or Category:People in conversation ? Miikul (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Miikul: I think these "clearly-defined" categories need some cleanup. Category:People in conversation should be restricted to actual images of people in conversation, with concept categories going to Category:Conversation. Category:Talking should not under Category:Conversation, since Category:Speech is also an instance of talking and it is not generally considered conversation (one-off speeches are not conversations). Category:Talk is really redundant to Category:Talking unless we have media specifically about instances of talking, as distinct from the behavior. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Logos of universities in the United States

Should be merged with Category:Logos of higher education institutions in the United States as that category covers both universities and colleges. Discussion also taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Logos of colleges in the United States. Astros4477 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically it should be Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States. Apparently Category:Logos of universities and colleges by country was redirected to Category:Logos of higher education institutions by country at some point even though the sub-categories still follow "universities and colleges." I don't really care which one the category is renamed to, but it should be uniform and at least in the United States colleges are usually different then universities. So I'm not personally a fan of combing them in the same category. You could also argue "higher education" is rather ambagious. Although again, I don't really care either way. The whole is ultimately rather pedantic and meaningless, as are of these types of things on here. @Joshbaumgartner: for their opinion since their the one who redirected Category:Logos of universities and colleges by country to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


  •  Keep Aside from my first comment, Category:Logos of universities is a thing and there's plenty of sub-cats that I had nothing to do with. So I don't really see what the issue here is or why this particular category should be upmerged but not the others. Probably Category:Logos of universities should be discussed, but there's no reason to merge this category when other ones for "logos of univerisites" exist. It's not really clear to me how exactly it covers both universities and colleges either. To the degree that there's any overlap, that can just be dealt with moving the images that shouldn't be in the category into a more appropriate one. From what I can tell none of the logos in the category are for colleges to begin with though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
     Keep "Universities and colleges" has been changed to "higher education institutions" per previous CfDs. "Universities" is a valid sub-category of this, so this category is okay, if the contents are really all specifically universities. Since Category:Logos of colleges in the United States exists, there is some hope the logos are accurately segregated correctly, but even if not, the answer is to accurately sort them. If a logo is unknown whether it is for a college or a uni, it can go in the parent Category:Logos of higher education institutions in the United States until they can be accurately diffused. Josh (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
 Keep per Adamant1 and Josh. I'm the one who renamed Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States to use "higher education institutions", which can include HEIs other than colleges and universities.

You could also argue "higher education" is rather ambagious. (sic)

@Adamant1: There's nothing ambiguous with "higher education" by the way, as the division between higher education and the lower levels of education (so-called "school education") is widely followed across the world. There are some undergraduate colleges in India and Bangladesh that also provide high school education, but they are explicitly named as "School and College", and they adhere to different authorities regarding high school education and higher education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: I could be wrong, but I think some countries consider 2 and 4 year colleges to qualifies as "higher education." Whereas others only use the term to describe 6 year universities and the like. Kind of like "graduate school." Sometimes it can mean a four year college but other times it refers to 6 year universities and similar graduate schools beyond a bachelors degree. I don't think it matters so much in this case though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, we don't need to define "higher education" here. Let's wait for other users for input. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:İbrahim ÖZASLAN pictures wrongly categorised

Random collection of little value, found in a wrong category Dosseman (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I found this set in a category about Basalt Rocks (that I found of little value myself) when editing pictures of the town of Boyabat. After some study of what might have happened, I think a one-time user uploaded them, not knowing what he was doing. I put them in a sub-category just to get them away from a wrong spot, but am of the opinion that none of the pictures is new in any way or of artistic value. Also, some of the descriptions are wrong (a minaret is called "kilise", church). I think deleting the whole would end a fruitless experiment by a user who would do everything wrong. I did notify him on his talk page about the existence of this ad hoc category.Dosseman (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Round Six special appearances

The title is not entirely right (the international title is Squid Game, Round Six applies only for Brazil and Canada). Also the two actor pages linked are not special appearances but regular cast Despechi.ro (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. There's a deeper problem here - Commons categories should not be used to represent non-hierarchical relationships like cast lists. Category:Squid Game cast members and Category:Squid Game supporting cast should not exist. Omphalographer (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Syzygium fratris - botanical illustrations

There are no images that fit this category, either on Commons or outside it —  Junglenut | talk  23:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging MILEPRI, as they created the category. Do you have files to populate the category? Otherwise, it can be deleted as empty. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed.
Consensusdelete
ActionsDelete category. Can be recreated if there are files in the future.
Participants
Closed byAuntof6 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
    • OK. It is a mistake to confuse the x-ray of the leaf as an illustration. Thanks for the correction.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cast members

Relisting this discussion, as the previous one has gone stale. I'd like to have this and every other "[Movie/TV series] cast" category deleted, as these subcategories don't exist to sort or diffuse media relevant to these movies or tv series. It also creates an enormous amount of category bloat for actors who have been in the profession for a long time, and have performed in dozens of movies and tv series. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support These types of categories could theoretically work if they we're confined to clearly notable lead actors and images of them that directly relate to the movie. Like say Category:Top Gun cast members containing a sub-category for images of Tom Cruise at a Top Gun premier. The problem is that it never works out that way. Instead you end up with stuff like Category:The Secret Life of Pets cast where the movie is a cartoon to begin with and the category contains a bunch of random subcategories for non-notable actors without any images of the movie to begin with. At that point it's just meaningless trivia that is better stored on Wikidata and accessed through infoboxes. There's already categories for images of actors at movies premiers and the like anyway. So these categories are redundant at best, if not totally meaningless at worst. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. As I have said many times, Commons is not Wikidata, nor is it IMdb. This type of information is best represented in Wikidata - when included properly, it will show up in {{Wikidata Infobox}}, as it does in e.g. Category:Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope. Replicating this data in categories is an exceptionally poor use of editor time, especially as not all films or actors have Commons categories. (Adding category links for the actors in the infobox, or reverse search links for "what films has this actor appeared in", could be desirable enhancements for the template, but that's a separate matter.)
There are a small number of images on Commons which really, truly depict the cast of a production, like File:Cast members of Game of Thrones (Comic-Con 2012).jpg. However, in most cases, there really aren't enough of those images to merit specific categories, and there's certainly no need to create an overarching category to encompass all such photos of any show's cast.
Omphalographer (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As an additional matter, I think we also need to address related categories, such as:
-- and probably a few more I've forgotten about. We've ended up with a lot of overlapping categories all trying to represent the same "X played the role of Y in Z" relationship from different angles, or using slightly different terminology. If we're going to represent it at all (which I don't think we should), we need consensus on how that should be done. Omphalographer (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Having both these types of categories (Actors by movie, Movies by actor) creates a circular category structure as well, which is against Commons guidelines. So we should only have one at most, though I agree we should have neither. All these categories say/do roughly the same thing, and they all have the same problem as the one I mentioned upthread in that they don't contain or diffuse media relevant to these productions. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd support getting rid of all of the categories that are similar to Category:Cast members. None of them really serve any meaningful purpose that can't be done better through wikidata and infoboxes. Especially in the case of Category:People associated with fictional characters since the term "associated with" is totally meaningless and categories based on "association" are meant to be for a type of organization, not subjects that are tangentially related to each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Greek Orthodox churches in the United States by state

Rename to Category Church buildings of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America by state. It is a duplicate of Category:Churches of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in many cases. Except where the state is unknown. I'm not aware of any Greek Orthodox church buildings in the USA that are not part of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Other churches are other flavours of Eastern Orthodox. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I am not very skilled on this topic, thus I'll rely on what more educated users have to say about that. -- Blackcat 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
 Support renaming to Category:Churches of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America by state per nom. We normally call the buildings "churches", not "church buildings" unless you're specifically talking about different church buildings within the same church compound. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that I would prefer "Church buildings". In the USA, the word "church" can mean an institution or a bricks-and-mortar building. In some small towns, the two can often mean the same thing - the building is itself the entire denomination. When it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, "church" gets even trickier. Is it a rite (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac?). Is it a language (e.g. Greek is used in the liturgy in countries that don't even speak Greek). Is it a nationality (e.g. Ukrainian Greek Orthodox)? Is it a patriarchate (e.g Ecumenical Patriarchate, Antiochian Patriarchate)? So to avoid all these doubts, I think that the word "building" is both useful and necessary. But if I can't get support on the proposal as formulated, I'll accept your amendment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: in Italian too we have the same ambiguity: the term chiesa (church) can identify both the institution (la Chiesa cattolica = the Catholic church) or a building where the Catholic cult is practiced (though in this latter case we use to say una chiesa cattolica = a Catholic church, not la Chiesa cattolica = the Catholic church, which is the institution). The only difference might be that when the term church is used as institution, it's capitalised, whereas it's not when it's used to indicate the building. -- Blackcat 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:České odrůdy brambor - Slunečnice topinambur

This category has a Czech name. An English name might be appropriate. Ies (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's completely nonsense. The name means "Czech varieties of potato – topinambur sunflower", Helianthus tuberosus isn't biologically a potato. The category should be deleted and the content properly categorized to Helianthus tuberosus subcats. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Indian military personnel killed in action

Are their categories in Commons with similar name, considering there are a lot of military people from different countries killed in action? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well there are e.g. these:
That being said, yes, it would be nice to have the categories organized more neatly. For example, Category:Military people killed in action by country does not include the Indian category or the Polish category. Joker Island (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pages by page numbers

This is not a useful property to categorize on. Pages of documents should be categorized with other pages from the same document, not with pages from unrelated documents which happen to have the same number on them. Omphalographer (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And they are already categorized with other pages from the same document. The same way a house will be categorized with the other houses in the same street but will then also be categorized with those houses which share the same number. I don't see a problem here. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
What purpose does that serve? Under what circumstances would someone want to find a page numbered 123 (for example), but not care what it was from? Commons categories exist to make media discoverable through those categories. We don't create categories for their own sake, or just to attach metadata to files.
(I don't think Category:House number signs by number is terribly useful either, for what it's worth, but that's a separate discussion.) Omphalographer (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I only meant that I don't think the fact that something can be (and actually is) categorized under another system is an argument per se for the deletion. But I do think you are right that it's not very useful to categorize pages together just because they happen to have the same number. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Visitors

What's the distinction between Category:Travellers, Category:Visitors, and Category:Tourists? Also, if they are distinct, the category Category:Visitor attractions shouldn't be used for "tourist attractions". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I know, there's a distinction between a "traveller" (one who travels) and a "tourist" (one who travels for pleasure). But what about a "visitor"? We do have Category:Visits, but I'm not sure how it is distinct from travelling or touring. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Most of the subcategories here, like Category:Visitors in Venice, feel like they're actually about tourists. Some, like Category:Museum visitors or Category:Escalators with people, are just about people in locations. And some, like Category:Pilgrims, Category:Exhibitors, or Category:Visitor parking only signs, are about tangentially related subjects which belong elsewhere.
I'm unsure that some of these photos need to be classified as "visitors" (or "tourists" or what-have-you) at all. Photos of people in places which often have many people in them - like malls or supermarkets or airports - are simply photos of those places. There's no need to specify that the people are "visitors" - even if the photo focuses on the people, categorizing it as "people at/in PLACE" is sufficient. Omphalographer (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This is why I think "visitors" categories are redundant to other established categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Museum buildings

What the heck is this category doing? For almost all museums, the buildings come under the main Category:Museums category rather than this subcat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:School buildings

What the heck is this category doing? For almost all schools, the buildings come under the main Category:Schools category rather than this subcat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess that the idea is that ideally, for School of XYZ:
  • a photo of the building would be in "School of XYZ building" category
    • which would be in the "School buildings" category
    • and also in the "School of XYZ" category
  • the "School of XYZ" category would also have other pictures, like events, famous alumni, famous professors...
    • and it will be in the "Schools" catehory
The thing is that the school is an institution, and that's why the "Schools" category is in these categories:
  • Educational institutions by type
  • Child-related places
  • School education
While the ""School buildings" category is in these categories:
  • School architecture
  • Education buildings
  • Workplaces
Deleting the "School buildings" category (and its subcategories) and moving everything to the "Schools" category (and its subcategories) would mean that photos of school buildings will not be in "Buildings" or "Buildings by function" categories. Joker Island (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Higher education buildings

What the heck is this category doing? For almost all higher education institutions, the buildings come under the main Category:Higher education institutions category rather than this subcat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I don't follow that. A building is not an institution, and should generally have some parent category leading back to Category:Buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Why not directly categorizing the institution categories under buildings? The definitions of "institution" I have provided in a later CFD say that it refers to an orgnaization as well as the building where it is housed. Of course, we cannot do the same thing with banks, as they are spread with a lot of branches. The same thing may not be true for educational institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: Because, for example, Category:École polytechnique is going to be a (sub-)subcategory of Category:Higher education institutions but we need a place for Category:Buildings in École polytechnique. Universities are much more than buildings - they own and manage research forests and farms, research vessels, transportation, and things without even a physical presence like Category:SETI@home. Plus we need a place to put things like Category:University and college bookshops, Category:University and college presidential residences by country, Category:Higher education mathematics buildings, etc. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Similarly, consider Category:University of Washington: not only multiple buildings but multiple campuses, not even all in the same city. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Institutions

While there was a consensus to merge this category to Category:Organizations at Categories for discussion (2021-03), turns out it is not a good solution, as there are several organizations/institutions split, like Category:Educational organizations/Category:Educational institutions. There's also problems of making a distinction between Category:Institutes and Category:Institutions. So I have listed the relevant definitions of these term here.

  • Institute
    • Dictionary.com: "a society or organization for carrying on a particular work, as of a literary, scientific, or educational character", "the building occupied by such a society"
    • Merriam-Webster: "an organization for the promotion of a cause : association", "an educational institution and especially one devoted to technical fields"
  • Institution
    • Dictionary.com: "an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character", "the building occupied by such an establishment"
    • Merriam-Webster: "an established organization or corporation (such as a bank or university) especially of a public character"
  • Organization
    • Dictionary.com: "a group of persons organized for some end or work; association"
    • Merriam-Webster: [defines as a synonym of "association" and "society"]

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What is/are your question(s)? What should we discuss? JopkeB (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: I was busy for more than a week, but my question is whether an "institution" can be distinguished from an "organization". Otherwise, Category:Institutions is a pointless category to keep. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
An organization is a much broader concept than an institute or institution. Organizations vary from a household with only one or two persons to big military armies, ministries, ngo's with a lot of volunteers and employees, and multinational companies, including institutes. This is the umbrella concept.
The word institution can have several meanings, see Institution (disambiguation).
So I think one of the question here should be: how to handle this multiple meanings in Commons (and in Wikidata, because the Wikidata Infobox only mentions the first meaning). At first glance, in the Commons category are only subcategories about the second meaning. I see nothing there that indicates "Laws, rules, social conventions and norms" like the EN-WP article mentions. So I think one of things that should be done is to have another Wikidata Infobox in the Commons category (or the other way around: to move the Commons category from the current Wikidata item to a correct one). And perhaps we should rename this category to something like "Institutions (formal organizations)".
There has been a discussion about Institutes, which did not have a clear conclusion. So I hope we can leave the discussion about Institutes here aside and focus here only on the relation between institutions and organisations, that is complicated enough. JopkeB (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: Hmm, that makes things clear. "Institutions" in Category:Educational institutions refers to formal organizations, while Category:Educational organizations can include other types of organizations. So, my current proposal is to:
That will probably make things better. I'll discuss the Category:Institutes category in a separate CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: My comment on your proposal:
  1. I still prefer renaming Category:Institutions to "Institutions (formal organizations)" to make it clear that this is not about the sociological concept. I agree to include Category:Ensembles of buildings as parent.
  2. I agree that Category:Institution should not have a redirect to Category:Organizations. Perhaps we can make this a disambiguation page with links to:
    1. Category:Social institutions for humanly devised structures of rules and norms that shape and constrain social behavior
    2. Category:Institutions for formal organizations
  3. I agree to link Category:Institutions to the Wikidata item for formal organizations (Q369729).
Please ping me for the new CFD of the Category:Institutes (and perhaps the other participants of the former discussion?). JopkeB (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete The distinction between an "institution" and an "organization" is one without a purpose. Most people don't know or care about the differences anyway. Plus just leads to bad categorization. Like having categories for low level schools in ones for "educational institutions" when that's not what they are. Look at this way, marriage is an institution, but having specific categories for "marriage institutions" that include every random marriage chapel out there would just be nonsensical. Although there are "institutes", but rarely is an institute an institution or visa versa. That said, whatever is an institute should be in Category:Institutes. There's no point in having a general category for "Institutions" though as it just needlessly duplicates existing categories. Category:Marriage already exists. It would be redundant to have categories like Category:The institution of marriage or whatever on top of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:Educational institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Clubs and societies

A union category of Category:Clubs and Category:Societies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I see societies and clubs as two different things and grouping them together could cause confusion, for example engineering societies and scientific societies being more professional organizations being grouped with clubs, which is generally more amateurs or enthusiasts. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I say make them clearly separate. Although Category:Societies conflicts with Category:Society to a degree. It also seems like a lot, if not all, of these organizations are societies in name only. Kind of like how Sam's Club isn't a club to any degree that actually matters on here. So I'd prefer it if the category was just axed and the subcats were moved to something clearer. Maybe Category:Social clubs perhaps? It's not really clear to me what makes a "society" different from a social club outside of the name and at least that doesn't cause overlap with Category:Society. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Societies

What makes an organization a "society"? Merriam-Webster defines it as a "voluntary association", while Dictionary.com does not provide any definition of a "society" as a type of organization. Wiktionary defines it as a synonym of "organization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Here's one for scientific society, "Scientific societies are organized groups of individuals who come together to promote and advance scientific research and knowledge." Also, "Military societies are organizations that support military members and veterans, and promote military history and culture." Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both can be subcats of Category:Scientific organizations and Category:Military organizations respectively. Otherwise, "society" is nearly synonymous to "organization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to organizations. No meaningful, clear distinction. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I agree with the points made about no clear distinction between "society" and "organization", particularly since there is no cat description, I think in this case there is merit to keeping the cat as a navigation tool for someone looking for organizations titled "society". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @FieldMarine: Use Category:Organizations named societies for that case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Up-merge. Category:Societies conflicts with Category:Society to a degree. It also seems like a lot, if not all, of these organizations are societies in name only. Kind of like how Sam's Club isn't a club to any degree that actually matters on here. So I'd prefer it if the category was just axed and the subcats were moved to something clearer. Maybe Category:Social clubs? It's not really clear to me what makes a "society" different from a social club outside of the name and at least that doesn't cause overlap with Category:Society. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Shingle Style architecture

I don't think there's any reason for "style" to be capitalized here (and in the subcategories), but I thought I'd open a discussion, just to be safe. Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen it capitalized more often than not. "Shingle Style" is something of an open compound proper noun. Unlike "Modern" or "Cubist" or whatever, "Shingle" on its own doesn't have this meaning. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Banks of Bhutan

This category seems to me to be a duplicate of Category:Banks in Bhutan. If not then it should be pointet out clearly waht is the difference between these two categories. I suggest to merge both categories. Robby (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robby:  Support merging Category:Banks in Bhutan to Category:Banks of Bhutan. I think there's a CFD regarding the definition of "bank" to be used in Commons, and we agree that it should refer to the financial institution and not its branches. For branches we can create Category:Bank branches in Bhutan if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Linguistic minorities

Ill-defined category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. The three subcats are for two individual people and a group of languages. The English Wikipedia category is somewhat the same, having entries for languages, people, and, for some reason, Aesop's Fables.
Maybe the solution is to have a category for minority languages, and subcats for speakers of those languages. Don't ask me where the fables should go. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support A category for minority languages might also be the right place for Category:Cups and mugs in minority languages. --Bücherfresser (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Category:Minority languages Iketsi (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic minority languages of China

All non-Sinitic languages of China are "ethnic minority languages". Since we categorize Sinitic languages under Category:Chinese languages, we don't need a category for non-Sinitic languages of China. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

If this category is deleted, the 11 languages categories currently grouped under Category:Ethnic minority languages of China would be transferred one class up to the Category:Languages of China. I find the current structure of Category:Languages of China rather messy and an addition of 11 categories could make it messier, but I have no strong objections either. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Foreign languages in the United States

I have troubles defining this category. While English is the most common language of the US, Spanish is also pretty common in the former Wild West. French and German are also historically common in the US. Technically speaking, English, Spanish, French, etc. are all "foreign languages" of the US because they are not considered indigenous to that country, but that's problematic for a country whose majority languages are non-indigenous. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Further, the U.S. has no official language. There have been several efforts to make English official, some as early as the 18th Century. All have failed. The organized English-only movement dates back over a century, and has never succeeded in passing federal legislation. About half the states make English "official", some of them with other co-official languages, some with a different special status short of "official" for some additional language or languages, etc. Just to complicate things further: California is one of the states that makes English "official", but lacking any enabling legislation, that official status is a dead letter. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump seems now to have done so by executive order; I doubt it will stand. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Filmmakers by nationality

Rename both Category:Filmmakers by nationality and Category:Film people by nationality to Category:Filmmakers by country and Category:Film people by country respectively. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, and also rename all the "American" ones to "from the United States". -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms Halle family

Solle umbenannt werden: Coats of arms of Halle family (es fehlt das "of") GerritR (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  • yep, sehe ich auch so, es gibt aber in commons keine Vorgaben von denen ich wüsste, nichts desto trotz wäre eine gewisse Einheitlichkeit sicher hilfreich -- A1000 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Ukraine with some areas removed

This list scontains maps that disrespect Ukrianian territorial integrity Unas964 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a reason to delete a category nor files in it like File:Региональные выборы на Украине 2015 - Донор.svg File:Russian-ukrainian armed conflict English version.jpg File:Automobile codes of regions of Ukraine (2014–2022).png MBH 20:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps with Crimea marked under Russian control

This category shoudl be removes as it disrespects the territorial integrity of Ukraine Unas964 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate of still opened discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Maps where marked Crimea as Russian Federation control, should be closed here. MBH 20:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Newspapers by year

We have a mess here. "Newspapers by year" is linked to Category:Newspapers by year of establishment (Q9587647). Clearly these are two entirely different things. The New York Times, for example, was established in 1851, but a given copy of the Times might be from any year since then. There is probably a need for both of these concepts, but they should not be conflated. I could be mistaken, but it looks like Allforrous conflated them 19 April 2024 with no discussion. Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree in that Newspaper by year should categorize newspapers printed in a particular year, not newspapers that were established in a particular year (since I have contributed some New York Times content from the 1920s in my continuing efforts to depaywall public domain newspaper content.) Abzeronow (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree that these are two different things. Maybe using "by year of establishment" and "by year of publication" would keep things clear. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Exactly. Which I believe is how it was until last April. This week was the first time I was working in an area where my attention was drawn to this. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree. these are two separate matters. We have plenty of other "by year of establishment" categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Old men wearing vests

Category exclusively used for Modi, prime minister of India. I'm no expert but I feel like this should contain other examples to be useful? Given that it is for one person I feel like it is redundant and could be deleted Carlinmack (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as the creator. As an Indian, I'm familiar with Modi who commonly wear vests in his public appearances. Considering the lack of familiarity with other senior personalities commonly wearing vests, I can't find other examples of old men wearing vests. Regardless, the images of Modi categorized here can be used as examples of old men wearing vests, unless other examples can be found and we can move those Modi images to Category:Narendra Modi wearing vests. Also, he does not always wear vests (he may wear jackets, Tamil clothes, military uniform or something else, depending on occasion). Considering all these, this category is useful for end users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Carlinmack, Bluerasberry, and Ratnahastin: Just to note, I've already created Category:Narendra Modi wearing vests for images of Modi in vests. So this category can be deleted or upmerged to Category:Men wearing vests. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Calatrava bridge in Petah Tikva

Category should be merged into Category:Operation Arnon Bridge. The bridge was renamed "Operation Arnon Bridge" in August 2024 so the category (and subcategory Category:Views from Calatrava bridge in Petah Tikva) should be renamed. DGtal (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Akbar Ramayana

What is a difference between this category and already existing Mughal ramayana? Now it is a mix of all kinds of paintings from different Mughal manuscripts, made for different patrons, not only Akbar. It simply doesn't make any sense and it needs to be deleted Nous (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OK I agree. please meargeBaddu676 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (Second presidency)

the redirect serves little purpose SDudley (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Then {{Bad name}} would suffice. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:1968 Texas election maps

These maps were not created in 1968, so they should not be displayed in the "1968 maps of Texas" category. Enyavar (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks as though this is a general issue - Template:United States election map category by state and year automatically assigns election map categories to "YEAR maps of STATE". I agree that this should probably be disabled - there are already more specific categories for election maps; they don't need to clutter categories which are meant for maps which were drawn in the past. Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar -- So I've been contemplating how best to address this issue, but I haven't come up with a good answer, so I'll just lay out my thoughts:
  • I recognize a valid interest in making a distinction between modern and contemporaneous maps in certain settings, such as for larger (e.g. country) categories that are highly-populated with maps spanning a wide range of time, potentially millennia. I understand this sort of distinction is made (albeit from what I can tell somewhat inconsistently) in certain projects here.
  • But when it comes to U.S. state maps, for the majority of purposes, the distinction between the year the map was made and the year it depicts is inconsequential due to limitations of time (maps rarely spanning more than 2-3 centuries, if that, and most made more recently than not) and smaller geographical areas. So for the most part old and new maps aren't that different. If that difference is significant, it's easy to look at the available files and distinguish new from old since there's rarely more than a handful of maps for any given state and year.
  • There's nothing about Category:1968 maps of Texas that inherently restricts it to *only* "maps of Texas made in 1968". In fact, following through with the logic that the year in the name should be the year made, that would imply that File:1968 Election in Texas by Precinct.svg (map created in 2024) should be categorized as Category:2024 maps of Texas -- even though the 2024 aspect is perhaps the least important thing about that file. Far more important is the nexus of "Map" x "Texas x "1968", which leads into my last point -->
  • My primary interest -- and ultimate goal -- is to be able to locate state maps depicting any given year (e.g. intersection of Map x State x Year), regardless of when they were made. Using the schema as they currently stand seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me -- I can go to Category:1968 maps of Texas and find all maps with the (logical I might add) nexus of "Map" x "Texas" x" 1968". Now, I don't have a problem with old and new maps being kept in separate subcategories or something along those lines (though it sounds to me like a lot of hassle that would ultimately create hundreds of mostly-empty categories) -- as long as they're properly connected and findable. The problem with removing "YEAR maps of STATE" (e.g. Category:1968 maps of Texas) from the template (as you suggested in Template talk:United States election map category by state and year) is that it completely removes the crucial intersection of Map x State x Year. (consider your example Category:1952 North Carolina election maps -- as it currently stands no nexus to other maps showing "Map" x "North Carolina" x "1952". (Sidenote: I realize these two examples are both sparsely populated -- that's exactly what I've been working on, populating state maps by year -- so you can also see Category:1863 maps of Pennsylvania for a better example of how its used as a container category.)
Any thoughts in response? -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that consideration, this is not an easy topic and has many facets. I responded in the template talk about the consequences for election maps.
Now, the logical nexus of maps||year||state is not nearly as helpful as you may think. (Yet your nexus of elections||maps||year||state is still great, without a specific category for other maps relating to Texas in 1968.)
For an overview, just check out the Category:1884 maps of South Carolina which holds not a single state map, just a bunch of insurance maps 1:500, created between 1884 and 1911 or even later. Thus, Sanborn maps should in my opinion be categorized by county (and never by-state-by-year). Similarly for county maps and city maps: this 1886 map of Vermont does not in fact show much of Vermont, but just a town. Its current categorization still allows it to be found via search "1886 maps of Vermont" if needed, but that map-by-year-by-state category was upmerged into 1880s maps of Vermont. Further back, it may shock you that this 1690 map of Virginia is actually just a reprint of a map created in 1636 (or 1630?) but the original is again claimed to be from 1606, which means this map predicted the captivity of John Smith in 1607. Categorizing such old maps strictly by year means to ignore a multitude of errors. But even more recently, this map from 1875 shows the real-world situation of 1870. Which year applies? Both? I'd say neither, this is a "1870s map of Media" (by decade, not year!), and since it is the only one, we don't need that decade-category either. It is also certainly not a "1870s map of Pennsylvania" (on the state-level). So it is quite well addressed with Category:Media, Pennsylvania and Category:19th-century maps of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Please consider to stop populating (old) by-year-by-state map categories, I am working since 2022 on upmerging those into by-decade categories. Many people have already recognized how meaningless by-year categories ultimately are. Most just complain (e.g. here); a few have begun to double down on the by-year logic and splitting them further - Category:Maps of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania by year is a result; quite often the subcategories have just one or two maps. The category creators may have thought that many more maps will eventually be included, but (Sanborn aside) we don't have the volume. My counter-proposal is Category:19th-century maps of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Please see the rant on my user page under "Old maps by decade" vs "Old maps by year": Sorting maps by creation year is in my opinion madness, when they should primarily be sorted by location topic. --Enyavar (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bill Clinton after 2001

Fairly arbitrary category and not useful for navgiation, since it's just in Category:Bill Clinton by year anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. The English Wikipedia has made an editorial decision to break this period of Clinton's life into a separate article (en:Post-presidency of Bill Clinton), but that doesn't mean that Commons needs an analogous category, especially when we're already categorizing photos by year. Omphalographer (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Palace of Auburn Hills

Category should be renamed Category:The Palace of Auburn Hills to align with en wiki and the official name of the venue, as also evidenced by the official logo which includes "The" in it Astros4477 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Circles (Pedagogy)

I propose to change this to Category:Circles (pedagogy) NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the current name is incorrect because of the capitalization of Pedagogy, so I'd be happy with the move. However, the term circle pedagogy seems to be a thing, so it may be worth entertaining that alternative option as well. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Halych-Volhynia

Should be merged into Category:Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. They are essentially the same, as the Wikidata Infobox also indicates. The nominated category focuses on heraldry and manuscripts, the target category more on political and military history, but it's about the same medieval kingdom in Central Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:John Nash

There are so many others called "John Nash" that I think that a disambiguation page may be more useful here, especially as Category:John Forbes Nash may be the more familiar "John Nash" for many people. But as it is such a large category, checking if there is any opposition. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pipeline markers by country

A move (which would mean to merge it with "Pipeline signs by country") was proposed by ŠJů in May 2023, with the rationale: "seems to be a duplicate not compatible with the parent categories". Looking to discuss this further. Further categories to be taken into consideration are:

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicating the previous comment from 15 May 2023:
The idea behind the creation of a separate category was that there are two distinct types of objects:
  • signs - typycally look like plates affixed to walls or poles and tell you where (distance and direction) to find a pipeline or a cable; examples: 1, 2, 3
  • markers - typycally look like small posts on the ground and tell you that a pipeline or a cable is directly below; examples: 1, 2, 3
VileGecko (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hamm

A move to "Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia" was proposed by Crouch, Swale in February 2024, with the rationale "DAB per En Wikipedia". Looking to discuss this further, as it's a category with lots of subcategories and files. It's true than en.wiki uses the dab, but many other projects don't and simply have it as the main Hamm, the way we have it here as of now. Alavense (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Yes as I proposed, if EN disambiguates then generally we should even if most other projects don't as the threshold for primary topics for categories here is generally higher than Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  On hold The German disambig page de:Hamm (Begriffsklärung) lists seven places named "Hamm" in North Rhine-Westphalia, so "Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia" is still ambiguous and won't avoid miscategorisation. Any better proposal? --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe something like Category:Hamm (Hamm-Uentrop) but that's not great so maybe Category:Hamm (city) as it seems to be the only city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Perth Underground station

A move to "Perth Underground railway station" was proposed by Steelkamp in November 2023, with the following rationale: "Despite the fact that the common name for this station is "Perth Underground station", it should be moved for consistency with other categories within Category:Transperth train stations". That would be in line with the name of the category on en.wiki. Looking to discuss it further. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  • @Orderinchaos: could you comment on this? Alavense the person you messaged has passed away. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Chris.sherlock2 Any evidences for your "passed away"? If there are, feel free to mark the deceased template. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
    Extensively reported on WMAU and the en.wikipedia user page is memorialised. Plus I’m an Australian who knows a lot of Australians. JarahTree passed away - feel free to memorialise. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. The notification was sent automatically when I created the CFD. Thanks for letting me know, Chris.sherlock2. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • oppose for now suppport it started as Perth Underground, and has been renamed as Perth station for advertising convience. Its distinctly a separate set of north/south platforms & tracks which are few 100m away under Willima street, with the exception of walkway under Wellington street they arent connected. I think its much better the current separated category structure is ideal. What I dont see in this proposal is what name is being suggested. Gnangarra 22:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: The name suggested by Steelkamp is Category:Perth Underground railway station. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with the proposed actions, no idea why Chris.sherlock2 assumed "passed away" above despite the nominator commented here 2 days after it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
    I said the person he messaged passed away. JarrahTree died. He messaged JarahTree, who was extensively involved in this. I don’t know why you think he hasn’t passed away. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
    I was misleaded by above texts as "Alavense has passed away". Indeed, the actual passed away user is JarahTree, not Alavense. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
    I would not ping a deceased editor. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Robes and cloaks

A COM:UNION category again.  Delete this category and categorize its subcats to either Category:Robes, Category:Cloaks, or both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename Allforrous (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: Rename to what? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Rename category Allforrous (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Again: what are you proposing that it be renamed to? Omphalographer (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. It doesn't make any sense. Allforrous (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: Can you please clarify what you are saying? "Rename category" is meaningless in CFD unless you suggest a new name of the category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
[[:Category:Indoor and outdoor garments]] Allforrous (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: I think I might be wrong, but there are no garments that are neither indoor nor outdoor. There are either indoor garments, outdoor garments, or garments that are suitable for both indoors and outdoors. I'm not sure whether robes, cloaks, and related garments are suitable for both indoors and outdoors, as the new name Category:Indoor and outdoor garments may imply. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Omachi, Nagano

The category was moved from Category:Ōmachi, Nagano to Category:Omachi, Nagano without discussion by Yasu, with the following rationale: "Japanese place names, including municipalities, are officially spelt without macrons; see the Gazetteer of Japan, #2646 provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan". I request further discussion as to what the name of the category should be, which would obviously apply to subcategories. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that I have made a move request before the category was eventually moved by a bot (not by myself) and that for over 7 months, not a single user objected to the move. In short: I followed the formal move procedure and I don't think I failed to comply rules. So, do you think I did fail to comply any of the rules or are you simply not happy with the current name, if I may ask? Yasu (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Yasu. No, neither the former nor the latter. I was just looking for some discussion. There are still some subcategories which don't have the same name and I think it would be nice to have further imput before we go on to move those subcategories. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Take a look into the Japanese municipality categories and you will see that almost all of them are actually spelt without macrons. Numerous major newspapers in Japan, including the Yomiuri, Asahi and Mainichi, use the name Omachi (without a macron). The city also calls itself as Omachi. Given that, Omachi is arguably the most widely used and accepted name for the city, thus most suitable category name IMO. Yasu (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG chess pieces

Smasongarrison requested a move in May 2024, with the following rationale: This category is being used for both a set and named like a general category. I want to move the set to its own page, and preserve the edit history. I request further discussion. The move has been requested for the following categories:

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the floor! I think it would really help tidy up the category. Smasongarrison (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
 Support. Ambiguous category name which has already attracted some images which don't belong to the set. Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Eliseus

A move from Category:Eliseus to Category:Elisha was proposed by Lesgles, with the following rationale: most common name in English. It is going to require further discussion. Alavense (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support rename. It's "Elisha" in many of the subcats, and also the English Wikipedia article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Neomura by country

Neomura is a proposed clade that would contain archeans and eukaryotes, and Wikipedia says that most scientists don't accept the neomuran hypothesis. So there should not be "by country" categories for clades that are not widely accepted by scientists. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on what I'm seeing in the Wikipedia article, this category should probably only be used for media related to the hypothesis itself, not for organisms which would it would hypothetically encompass. Omphalographer (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Seasons by city

I want to remove the "Nature" parent category of each of these subcategories. Currently it appears many (if not most) subcategories have "Nature of" as a parent category and subcategories that contain months, dates, that then include all photography of that particular date, including photos that have nothing to do with nature. As well, seasons by themselves have nothing to do with nature, they're just ways of dividing time. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support. "Seasons by city" categories frequently include photos like File:Litter bin rubbish Lordship Lane Tottenham, London, England 1.jpg (in Category:Spring in the London Borough of Haringey) which certainly aren't of "nature". Omphalographer (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites and Omphalographer:  Oppose removing nature categories from seasons categories, regardless of whether it is a city or a country.

I want to remove the "Nature" parent category of each of these subcategories. Currently it appears many (if not most) subcategories have "Nature of" as a parent category and subcategories that contain months, dates, that then include all photography of that particular date, including photos that have nothing to do with nature. As well, seasons by themselves have nothing to do with nature, they're just ways of dividing time.

Seasons are "ways of dividing time" according to the natural cycle of hot and cold, and season categories are supposed to include images directly associated with seasons (like snow-capped landscapes under "winter", queues for water under "summer", etc.). Categorizing photos like Litter bin rubbish Lordship Lane Tottenham, London, England 1.jpg under season categories is not a good idea, as such photos are not directly associated with seasons. I suggest removing month and date categories from season categories, as they are non-natural ways of dividing time, as opposed to seasons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:People of Great Britain

Merge to Category:People of the United Kingdom, as I can't find any pan-regional content related to people in Great Britain that cannot be categorized under the UK or its countries. For the historical country, we have Category:People of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose merge to United Kingdom. I believe I created the category, which refers to the historical Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800). The name of that country was simply “Great Britain”. The family of categories is not needed for geography, but it would not be helpful to merge it to the post-1800 United Kingdom. I am not sure that “Kingdom of Great Britain” is the better name, but whichever way they are merged those are the two to combine. Moonraker (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Note — the category contains Category:People of Great Britain by decade and Category:People of Great Britain by year, which makes it clear that it is only about the 18th-century. Moonraker (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Judging

Merge to Category:Judgment. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Not sure on this one, there are clear ones of people actively holding up signs, so that would be "judging". I'm sure it's technically also a "judgement" - but to me, "judgement" seems to have a more serious tone to it? In the end, I don't really mind one way or the other, just my 2c. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Blocks of flats

Merge to Category:Apartment buildings. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coffee houses

Is there any distinction between Category:Coffee houses and Category:Cafés? Otherwise, merge Category:Coffee houses to Category:Cafés. English Wikipedia has an article on coffeehouse, but it lists "café" as a synonym. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Small houses

A vague term at least. The corresponding category for the WIkidata item should be Category:Tiny houses, not this one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Robur Siena

This category clearly needs renaming. However, I'm not sure as to what the new name should be. SonoGrazy requested that it be renamed as Category:Siena FC. Is that all right, or should it be Category:Siena F.C.? The name should also be used for the subcategories, obviously. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

"Siena FC", I think. The other names I see under Category:Association football clubs in Spain by autonomous community all leave out the periods. Omphalographer (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Automobile interiors by brand

I see there are quite a lot of variants in the subcategories. So I'd like to get two things straight before I do any standardisation.

1) There are some which follow the model "Category:BRAND interiors", while others go by the name "Category:BRAND automobile interiors". Which one would be preferrable?

2) Once one goes into the subcategories, there are many different approaches: "interiur", "Interiur", "Interiors", "interior"... Would this be a good example, with all the models going by the name "Category:MODEL interiors"?

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There are enough ambiguous-sounding manufacturer names - like Category:Beijing interiors or Category:Contemporary interiors - that it's probably best to use "BRAND automobile interiors" throughout. With that in mind, "BRAND MODEL interiors" seems like the logical name for a specific model. Omphalographer (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
They should all specify "automobile". For any that don't:
  • If everything in them is automobiles (not trucks or something else), they should be renamed to "<brand> automobile interiors by brand"
  • Otherwise, they should be moved to vehicle interiors by brand.
I probably would have just done that if I'd seen this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:United States Marine Corps in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

This category has been nominated for deletion after creation of Category:United States Marine Corps in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Instead, it seems it should have been renamed to the new cat name to preserve the history of the original cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Antarctic

Redundant category. Can be covered under Category:Antarctica without much issues. Many European languages cannot distinguish the polar region from the polar continent. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral, Nasiruas

Прошу удалить как не актуальную Well-read MountainMan (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cyprus (island)

Potentially redundant category, as media related to Northern Cyprus or the British sovereign bases are often categorized under Category:Cyprus categories. While the British sovereign bases can be distinguished from the country of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus is a state with limited recognition (only Turkey recognise it), and is correctly categorized under Cyprus categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Architectural structural elements

What's the difference between Category:Architectural structural elements can Category:Structural elements? Structures themselves are architectural, and hence we are renaming the corresponding categories to Category:Architectural structures (see the talk page for the relevant CFD). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Satellite pictures by ocean and other basins

What are the "other basins"? Gulfs, bays, seas, or something else? Category names should not be that imprecise. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12 {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}} {{Commons:Categories for discussion/#time:Y/m}}

Category:Commons admin backlog Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded Category:Paintings of mythological giants Category:UFA - Universum Film AG