What is this category about? Is it about some specific program in Belgium, about the broad topic suggested by its name, or what? To add appropriate parent categories, we need to know. Jmabel! talk 04:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
The category is based on the UNESCO list of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage
It is in fact quite different. Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (ICH) / living heritage is the action of perserving and keeping alive the ICH, while intangible cultural heritage is a broad definition of the practices itself. Safeguarding could also be for example filming and distributing the ICH, gathering funds, etc. while practicing the ICH itself is often only the event or the craftsmanship itself.
“Safeguarding” means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage." (https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/05770-EN.ppt) (Powerpoint)
Also important to note: in the angelsaxon world the term ICH is less used and people tend to use living heritage more. Worldwide the term ICH is more used. Do you think it is possible to make alternative titles for this category? SofieVera (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe the category should be renamed to "Actions to preserve intangible cultural heritage" for clarity and consitency. Any ojections to this new name? Kritzolina (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Endurance Sports should probably be a subcategory of Aerobic Exercise. One can exercise without competing. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
"Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively.
It's about endurance exercises but more broadly not about specific exercises but the sport. Moving it to "endurance exercises" may be something to consider but I don't think that would be a good idea: it's broader than that; one can do different kinds of jogging (e.g. short or long) or cycling exercises (e.g. uphill, short or long) but it's still the same sport (here jogging or cycling). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
>"Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively.
Not, it doesn't. Sport pertains to any form of physical activity or game, often competitive and organized, that aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators […] There are opposing views on the necessity of competition as a defining element of a sport, with almost all professional sports involving competition. You could say it usually does. Skiing or bodybuilding are sports even when you don't do it competitively. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
They're probably still distinct enough concepts and warrant separate categories. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Another Question: What about a link (parent-subcat) with Category:Aerobics? Reading EN-WP article and seeing EN-WP category I think Category:Aerobic exercise should be a parent category of many subcategories, of which Category:Aerobics should be one. But I do not see a link with Category:Endurance sports because aerobic exercise is not necessarily about endurance. For me endurance sports is about long distances, like marathons and triathlons, see EN-WP for more examples. I think both Commons categories (Aerobic exercise and Endurance sports) need some reorganization. And I Agree: "Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively. --JopkeB (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes that category was missing there and I just added it.
Endurance sport is somewhat a misnomer, it's not really necessarily about long endurance and the better term would be e.g. cardio exercise/sport but it's rarely used that way noncolloquially. Doing an exercise for >1 minute is already endurance sport so in some sense it's still correct but it's an inappropriate emphasis on endurance if the exercise/activity doesn't go on for e.g. >20 minutes (or long distances if you move during it). The issue is that Aerobic exercise and Endurance sports are actually the same, each just highlighting a different aspect of the same thing(s)...it's characteristic for Endurance sports that they're Aerobic. Maybe it's too difficult to resolve this issue here and Aerobic exercise may be slightly broader in that it could encompass warm-up exercises. The issue is that these can also be part of or represent endurance exercise so I still think it would be better to have one unified category for both synonymous concepts.
In that case I prefer that the category name will stay that is most clear and the least misleading for the majority of people. For me that is Category:Aerobic exercise.
As far as our categories are concerned there is a distinction between exercise and sport. Its not very distinct, but it is real. Sporrting categories are generally best as subcategories of exercise categories.Rathfelder (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Could you please explain the distinction between exercise and sport? JopkeB (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Rathfelder, however take a look at the endurance sports category and consider the term "aerobic exercises" – if that is the scope then individual exercises can be part of sports. Merging two cats doesn't mean here that the terms exercise and sports are equivalent. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I think sport generally has some implication of competition. Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the Endurance sports category many or most of them aren't necessarily endurance sports. They can also be no sport but exercise and/or arguably not endurance. This means they would need to be copied into the aerobic exercise cat so they're in both cats. The better option would be to somehow merge both. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
No, I do not agree with merger both. JopkeB (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I want to make the subcategories more standardized. Some of them are called "Sessha and Massha of X shrine" in various capitalizations. I think we should harmonize the names of the subcategories a bit. Maybe either rename it to Category:Sessha and Massha or rename the categories to "Setsumatsusha of X Shrine". My understanding is that they are effectively one thing now, and we do not need to distinguish between the two. Although Sessha have a link to the main shrine deity, and Massha are unlinked deities enshrined at the shrine due to often widespread popularity. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Additional categories to work on this for. Pardon the ridiculous size.
I only recently created the category, but the subcategories were in existence for a very long time. Independently created for each of these 64 shrines without any coordination about common naming. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Clusternote I do not know what Keidai-sha and Keigai-sha are. How does the axis of categorization work? If the distinction is as hard to do as Sessha and Massha then it might be worth merging all 4 into one category. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Immanuelle: Sorry for my late response. I think that any media possibly sub-categorized to above four could be categorized under the generic-category Setsumatsusha (or Sessha and Massha). Several media about Keidai-sha can be found by keyword search "境内社", and Keigai-sha by "境外社", so I've categorized that pair earlier. On the other hand, the distinction of Sessha (摂社) / Massha (末社) may be hard task because it may possibly need the verification of reliable sources (for verifying the merging history of shrines, we need not only the official information (ex. jinja-net.jp and JinjaHoncho) but also the local history materials), and the sub-categorzation of above four sub-categories may be farther hard. --Clusternote (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Support. I think "Setsumatsusha of" is better than "Sessha and massha of". The latter is only appropriate when the shrine has both, and if it only has massha, it should be "Massha of", but it's often hard to tell which is the case. Whether each setsumatsusha is a sessha or massha is largely determined by the shrine's own tradition, but it's not always evident from the official website. Aiaiaiaiaia (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Anyone know what the purpose or usefulness of having "present-day" in the names of these categories is? If not, then I think I'll get rid of the phrase and just name them "x whatever in Occitanie" instead. It seems like a needlessly convoluted way to name the categories though. There also seems to be a lot of over-categorization along with it that should probably be dealt with, but that's secondary to the naming and I'll probably leave it to someone else to deal with. But I'd like to at least get rid of "present-day" if no one disagrees. Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Support deletion of "present day" phrase. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Support removal of "present-day" from this and sub-cats. Josh (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Support Get rid of the "present day" phrase AND get rid of over-categorization as well. --JopkeB (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The Occitanie that this is under is the administrative region that was established in 2016. So technically nothing could have existed in that region before 2016, even if it existed in the geographic area. This ties into other CFDs about places that didn't exist in the indicated time period. Here are a few I found:
There may be others. We may need a more general discussion about this kind of thing. I support not having such categories, and instead naming the categories for whatever the geographic place was called before the country/region/whatever was created, even if it has to be very general. In this case, it might have to be France, or maybe southern France (which category is currently also being discussed). -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I found Category talk:History of Nissewaard (Nissewaard started as a Dutch municipality only in 2015 as a combination of two former municipalities, including 8 populated places). It turns out there is a problem with the templates of the populateds places in Nissewaard Heenvlietyear and Spijkenisseyear, they should be split into at least two parts: before 2015 and after 2015. Because that is too complicated, we left the situation in Commons as it was in March 2023. But now in Commons History of Nissewaard goes back to the 19th century. And I guess this is a problem in hundreds of history categories for municipalities in the Netherlands alone, because there were a lot of new municipalities (combinations of former municipalities) in the past 20 years.
So I agree that we need a general discussion about this subject and include the problem of splitting the templates into several periods. JopkeB (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
What is 'puddle iron'? This is not a term commonly used in the literature, and it seems to be a duplicate of either wrought iron or cast iron (Some items listed here are cast iron, but the puddling process makes wrought iron). Either way, this is a duplication we do not need. Delete cat and merge back to whichever pre-existing category is appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This type of decarburized cast iron was used, in particular by Gustave Eiffel, so that its constructions are lighter than cast iron and can better resist the force of the wind by flexibility. This type of metal is neither cast iron nor wrought iron! It seems to me that given the existing constructions a particular category deserves to be preserved! I was in contact recently with a Breton engineer who lives like me in Rennes, correspondent of the descendants of Eiffel in Brittany who indicated that the constructions of Eiffel were "fer puddlé" in french and not cast iron or wrought iron. This engineer also provided me with photos (in wikimedia commons) of a Breton lighthouse (Moguériec lighthouse) built by Gustave Eiffel and which was renovated by crowdfunding in 2022-2023. Couldn’t the name of the category please become "malleable iron". Please excuse me for translating "fer puddlé" into "puddle iron". Cordially GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
There are several questions here: Is puddle iron distinct from wrought iron? Is it distinct from wrought iron produced by puddling (rather than the earlier process) and does this matter, given that we're looking at objects made from it here, rather than its metallurgy in particular? Why is cast iron getting included here at all?
We also have questions of improvement, such as how to link puddle iron to an article on en:WP which explains what it is. Because you seem to be claiming here that WP just doesn't mention it at all, which seems peculiar. fr:fer puddlé just redirects to fr:Puddlage, which is the French equivalent to the process article at puddling, not to some distinct type of iron.
'Malleable iron' is a problem as a definition because there are several meanings for that. Usually as improved cast irons, but wrought iron is still more malleable than any cast iron is. If this is why cast iron is getting mixed in here, that's very wrong.
I think these categories on Commons should be converted to their wrought iron equivalents (because puddle iron is wrought iron) and any cast iron should be removed. If we can state that 'Gustave Eiffel used a particular grade of wrought iron, produced by a particular process' then we should state that and expand WP to state that too. Eiffel is known in the UK for building his tower as the last great construction in wrought iron, at much the same time that the Forth Bridge was being built as the first equally great construction in steel. But I'm unconvinced that Eiffel's puddled iron was any different from any other wrought iron being produced at the same time, and certainly not to the point that we should distinguish here on Commons, for bridges built from it rather than wrought iron. For instance, were any other contemporary French engineers using wrought-iron-that-was-not-puddled-iron? I believe that this is simply a terminology difference for the same material. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, to answer your question about the nature of the "fer puddlé" used by Eiffel, it is not possible to say precisely what type of iron Gustave Eiffel used (from the "Société des hauts fourneaux et aciéries de Pompey"). During the restoration of the lighthouse of Moguériec near Rennes, specialists in metallurgy of the University of Rennes came to take metal samples on the old shaft of the lighthouse for analysis. Should I please wait for other contributors to comment on this topic before editing anything? Cordially. GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, a concrete proposal. Merge and/or rename all of these categories under Category:Puddle iron, including the parent, to Category:Wrought iron, as appropriate. Remove any content that isn't wrought iron (i.e. cast iron or steel). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, following your request I tried to make the requested changes correctlyǃ I hope this corresponds to your wishes and that I have not forgotten anything! As it has a banner placed on the main category: "Puddle iron", I will leave it to you to correct this page as it seems to you! Having made all the "infobox/wikidata" sheets of the headlights produced by Eiffel, by coherence, I kept the mention "fer puddlé" at the field level: material. I leave it to you to correct the wikidata sheet Q2642947 as you wishǃ With all my thanks. Cordially GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment@GOUPILLEAU J-Y: Hi, and thanks for trying to take care of this. Unfortunately, it appears that you have left empty categories behind (see Category:Puddle iron). I do not know what sub-categories puddle iron had, so I am unable to check them. Instead of leaving an empty category behind, please either make it a redirect to the correct category or use {{SD}} or {{Bad name}} to have it deleted. Also, once a consensus is reached in a discussion such as this, please close the discussion per the process at Commons:Categories for discussion so the logs can be cleaned up. If you are having any issues with these steps, feel free to ping an experienced user such as Andy or myself for assistance. Thanks! Josh (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your reply. I am not at the origin of the opening of this discussion and I thought it was better for Andy Dingley to close it! In the previous message I sent to him, I indicated that I hoped to have corrected the links in accordance with his request, ie: no distinction between "fer puddlé" (puddled iron) and "fer forgé" (wrought iron) and updated the categories and linked pages accordingly => wrought iron bridges and wrought iron lighthouses, under the wrought iron category. Is this discussion closed so that I can continue cleaning up? Thank you in advance for your answer. Sincerely GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Baron de An-Phuoc or An Phước Nam (安福男) refers to Mandarin Vi Văn Định. As no other holders of this title have been found, it is recommended that this category be deleted, the documents moved to the category of "Vi Văn Định", and information on "An Phước Nam (安福男)" added to that category. 源義信 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@源義信: Isn't it still a title independent of the holder, even if no other holder ever existed? I understand that the reasoning is that the person and the position are synonymous, but the concept of the title and person who held the title are still separate. It's like if a shop only ever occupied a single building, the shop and the building are still separate from each other as other shops had and will occupy the building. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Donald Trung I think your point makes sense. In my opinion, it's not necessary to create these types of category for every one, as I have not seen two or more people of the Nguyen Dynasty with a title of the same name. Regarding this kind of categories which has relevant documents (like File:6cts entrepot ptt.jpg), I am currently tending to Keep. I have moved the "Vi Văn Định" category so that it becomes a sub-category of this category (instead of the other way round). 源義信 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
源義信, the thing is, when I found that envelope 📨⃤ I didn't know who this baron was, all I found was the coat of arms (including the traditional Chinese seal) and that it was issued by this baron. As far as I knew, it could be a company named after the title. Later I did some research into the aristocratic titles of the Nguyễn Dynasty and found that noble titles are transmissible to the eldest son of the nobleman, with a decrease of one degree with each successive generation. As far as I could find there aren't that many special privileges granted to nobles other than the ability to use their title, wear a custom Kim Bài (金牌) and get a custom titular seal. As the Nguyễn Dynasty fell in 1945 most former aristocrats stopped using their titles, but not much is written about the aristocrats that I could find online. From what I can tell, usually these titles were given as "pension gifts" to retiring mandarins and French government officials alongside a stipend. Anyhow, thank you for identifying the man behind the title as the only reference I even found to this title was this envelope 📨 on a website that didn't even cover the issuer of the envelope, only the postal services that handled it. We tend to have categories for recipients of various medals and awards, but I'm not sure if the Vietnamese and Chinese nobility structures are well suited for such a similar system. But as this category actually has documents specifically referring to the title and not the owner it makes sense in this specific instance to exist. -- —Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Now that we're on the topic anyhow, I haven't come across that many personal coats of arms of the Nguyễn Dynasty other than those of the Emperor (which is usually just the national coat of arms but with the Emperor's reign era name on it instead of the quốc hiệu (國號, "national name").), the sole exception being this one and that of Empress Nam Phương. I'm sure that if you found any other examples that you would've uploaded them already, but I just found it interesting that this coat of arms also used a crown typically found on the coat of arms or a French baron, indicating a certain "Gallicisation" of Nguyễn Dynasty culture in this regard, even if it had already been long antiquated in France itself. Curiously enough, there seems to be little references to nobility in Chinese and Vietnamese history in general, this is probably because the Confucian system valued meritocracy over nepotism, but under French influence it might have been possible for a number of noble(wo)men to emulate European prestige, which is why we saw these documents arise, hence why I was able to make a category for this title without knowing who the owner of the title was. -- —Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You can take a look at Category:Noble titles of the Nguyễn Dynasty. The work is coming to an end. What I'm working on now is the categories of local gov't officials , such as Tong-doc, tuan-phu, bo-chinh-su, an-sat-su, tri-phu, tri-huyen... Then I am also going to work on the Four Column (Tứ trụ triều đình/朝廷四柱, the four Đại-học-sĩ), the Tam công (三公: 太師、太傅、太保、少師、少傅、少保) and the Tam Cô (三孤: 太子太師, 太子太傅, 太子太保, 太子少師, 太子少傅, 太子少保). 源義信 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
to group "categories of a place in a certain period" together as a certain person's era is simply overemphasising one person.
there're tens of thousands of celebrities or historical figures. are we gonna create similarly ill-defined categories for these people's eras? obama era? marilyn monroe era? shinzo abe era? putin era?
they simply mess up the cat tree by introducing weird loops from person to period to everything in a country in that period, leading to overly broad cat trees under these persons' categories. RZuo (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
We do have categories that refer to Japanese emperors (Meiji, Taisho, Showa, Heisei, Reiwa) and those are defined by specific dates, but using to to refer to Chinese politicians feels weird. I could see a use case for Chinese emperors and the eras of other monarchs, but not for politicians, be they authoritarian or democratic. Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
an era name is a formal word chosen by royals. it's an entirely different concept. RZuo (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Dab. @RZuo, @Abzeronow, we continue to see the problems with using alternative methods of categorizing by time other than the universal objective system of day-month-year-decade-century-millennium. I'm not denying that 'eras' can have significance within a given context, but they just end up adding extra layers of navigation both horizontally and vertically. They also add confusion where they overlap or are ill-defined and points of contention when their definition is not universally accepted. I recognize that an era name may be a start point for some users' searches, so I can see utility to these being a dab. For example:
The Yuan Shikai era refers to a period in Chinese history from 1912 to 1916, during which Yuan Shikai served as the Great President of the Republic of China, and so Category:Yuan Shikai era may refer to:
This way people can still find things relevant to the era without it clogging up or complicating the time-based categorization trees. Josh (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
This seems a terribly narrow thing to have broken down by U.S. state. The fact that almost none of the parent categories exist underlines that. Jmabel! talk 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
So those images originated at Category:Men wearing blue jeans which still has almost 800 images as of this writing. (It was well over 1000 when I started.) Are you going to return these images to an ancestor category that needs diffusion? Also someone actually found the category useful approximately one hour before you started this discussion which is evidence that there are still photos out there that include men wearing blue jeans who happen to be located in Washington State at the time of photographing. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
OK. Seems useless to me, but if you find it worth your while, go for it. But please do create the parent categories. - Jmabel! talk 18:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I'd have diffused them. I am trying (and failing) to find the use case for the end user that this helps. Yes, I'm sure that without diffusion Category:Men wearing blue jeans is large, but if someone is looking for an image of a man wearing blue jeans, it is actually harder to click into state-by-state categories than to scroll through a monolith, and I can't really imagine the person who is looking specifically for an image of a man wearing blue jeans in a particular U.S. state. - Jmabel! talk 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Diffusing files by some property (location, year, whatever) only makes sense where that property has some visible impact on the image, e.g. images of landscapes, buildings, etc. It doesn't make sense for images of things like clothing which will look about the same no matter where they happen to be taken. Omphalographer (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
A case can be made that how a given type or style of clothing is worn in different geographic areas can be a useful point of study in the field, so there may be a reason to associate a type of clothing with the place it was photographed in. Josh (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Not wanting deletion, but wanting clarification of what this category represents. Am I correct that this is not a category for photographs, but for simulated photographs? In that case, we should have hat text stating that, and I don't think Category:Digital photography should be a parent category. Jmabel! talk 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I think this term is more clearly understood with "AI generated photography." "Generative" photography is a misnomer (the photography is the result of a generative process, the photograph itself is not generative). In either case, digital photography seems like an appropriate parent to me, as generated images are the result of a digital process. But, I am not firmly committed to either outcome. Just wanted to elucidate my thoughts as the category creator! Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree to the two proposed changes by Jmabel. Since those aren't photographs it shouldn't have this category. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I was going to nominate Category:AI-generated photographs for discussion for about the same reason as stated by Jmabel here, then discovered that this parent category is already under discussion. Well, I think there is no "generative" or "AI-generated photograph". What this category contains are "AI-generated pictures resembling photographs", but they don't have to do anything with actual photography. I'm not against the category as such, but I think we should try to find a name that doesn't suggest that these images are photographs at all. So, how about "AI-generated pictures resembling photographs" - or is there a better idea...? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I strongly object to this inherently subjective category. "Realistic" is in the eye of the beholder. This is no more appropriate than a category about "really good pictures" or whatever. Jmabel! talk 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is Category:Inaccurate paleoart; for images made involving AI tools I thought it would be best if inaccuracy is assumed and the default so I went for this rather than "Inaccurate/unrealistic…".
I thought having a way to separate for example the images on the left from those on the right that aim or achieve to be realistic depictions would be useful (and possibly needed so that one assume inaccuracy if the cat is missing and easily find images that are more realistic or unrealistic). I don't care what happens to the cat if people don't see usefulness in this distinction but I think this distinction is adequate and useful in some shape or form that it's implemented. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're trying to get at - these generated images aren't stylized; they look like photos, not artwork. Perhaps "photorealistic" would be a more suitable term? Omphalographer (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Moving things into a photorealistic cat and some into some kind of Category:Anthropomorphic animals type of category may be a good thing to do. However, the two upper images on the right are still the kind of images aiming to depict animals as they really look like but aren't photorealistic, maybe anybody has further ideas what to do about such? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
"Anthropomorphic" means something different. In the context of animals, it specifically means artwork which depicts an animal with unrealistically humanoid characteristics (e.g. animals walking naturally on two legs, having humanlike hands and faces, wearing clothing, engaging in typical human activities, etc). It's a description of the content of the image, not its art style, making it entirely orthogonal to photorealism. Omphalographer (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
That's why I wrote "some kind of…type of category" there. I didn't know another term or cat about that but I remembered / found again the category Category:Animals acting as humans in art so maybe that's the appropriate phrasing. There's still an issue with that in that wearing humanoid clothing is not necessarily "acting" and that many of these images depict anthropomorphic animals.
making it entirely orthogonal to photorealism Exactly, I suggested as one possible approach to have the category inversed to rather categorize the images not in the realistic animals cats into cats including and/or like the "animals acting as humans" subcats.
I thought it was obvious so I didn't make that clear. An issue with that is that I think the best approach would be to assume the images are not realistic by default and only consider they may approximate a realistic depiction if they're in the "realistic animals by…" cat. There obviously a major difference and people interested in for example how well AI tools can depict things / animals would only be interested in the contents of the realistic animals… cats without it being cluttered with hard to distinguish unrealistic depictions and vice versa if one let's say looks for an image that could help illustrate the cultural phenomenon of the use of these tools for humorous unrealistic depictions (especially animals are relatively easy to generate using AI tools but would be hard to paint so were previously relatively rare to be depicted just for humor in high-quality art), one may only be interested in images not in these cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
good point. let me make mistakes too.:-) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the correctest way, because newest result, would be the name from Statistik Austria, that means Leonfeldner Straße —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Gruber (talk•contribs) 23:10, 14. Jan. 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure (see also de:Diskussion:Leonfeldener Straße) whether Leonfeldner Straße is just the name of the municipality street in Linz (see ) and other municipalities (?as given by Statistik Austria) and the B126 as a whole has a different name. Before we merge and move here, this best is clarified on de:Diskussion:Leonfeldener Straße. Still I have not found an official document defining the name. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
shouldn't this be merged to the Category:Sun viewed from Earth above it since that contains photos of Sun viewed from Earth (incl. e.g. Category:Aircraft with the sun)? Moreover, structuring the cat via subcats by year doesn't make much sense to me; there would be more useful things to organize the images by such as what the focus / specialty of the image is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Support Upmerge to Category:Sun viewed from Earth. @Prototyperspective, indexing is not a question of either/or, you can create an index by focus and/or specialty if you wish with no need to delete the by year indexing. Josh (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was not suggesting that the year cats be deleted. It's just that in this case and not rarely in other cases the subcats don't make much sense (i.e. aren't distinguishing the contents by criteria/characteristics that are most meaningful in that context) and that it can be difficult to create subcats for the latter once the files are a) dispersed across b) often deeply-nested subcategories. Two technical changes could make doing so easier but especially now and with mostly-manual once-only subcategorization practices, it's quite problematic, especially from a user standpoint who seeks to see many images for some category. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
No such thing. Creator is referring to Category:Esjan. Akrafjall is not a part of it. Snævar (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Esjan is partially made from rests of the Stardalsvolcano and partially from rests of the Kjalarnesvolcano. See eg. Snæbjörn Guðmundsson: Vegvísir um jarðfræði Íslands. (2019) p. 37-38, chapter re. Esja.
No such thing. Hrappsey is an island and is not part of an active volcanic system. Snævar (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not alone talking about active volcanoes, but also about old and eroded ones which I also indicate in the categories. This volcano, the Hrappsey volcano, was active during the Tertiary (Miocene/Pliocene). See eg. Léo Kristjánsson and Haukur Jóhannesson: Secular variation and reversals in a composite 2.5 km thick lava section in central Western Iceland. (1999) Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
See also: Ari Trausti Guðmundsson: Íslensk Fjöll. Reykjavík (Mál og Menning) 2004 ,p.46.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Does not exist. Not a mountain or an volcano. Could be "Gráhraun" (for the lava field) if some geological category is wanted, but otherwise merge with Category:Húsafell. Snævar (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it does. There are the rests of an (Pliocene, about 2 mill. years) old volcano at Húsafell. This is eg. mentioned by Snæbjörn Guðmundsson in his book Vegavísir um jarðfræði Íslands. (2015) p. 67, as well as in these scientific articles
K Saemundsson, H Noll: K/Ar ages of rocks from Husafell, western Iceland, and the development of the Husafell central volcano (1974) Jokull, v. 24 . Hornstrandir1 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Does not exist. Lón is an bay, and not an volcano. Split contents like so: Vestrahorn has klifatindur and "rock formations at vestrahorn". Krossanesfjall has eystrahorn, Lón is separate. Snævar (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Why did you remove my former comment? There are scientific articles mentioning the Lónvolcano, eg. by Thor Thordarsson and Ármann Höskuldsson in their book about the geology of Iceland. Acc. to them it was existing in the background of the today bay. Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Source: Thor Thordarson, Armann Hoskuldsson: Iceland. Classic geology in Europe 3. Harpenden 2002, p.124.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If you don't like the content of my comments just argument against it, but don't remove them.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
No such thing, move Móskarðshnúkar and Skálafell to Esjan. Stardal is an valley, not an volcano. Snævar (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
But yes, this an old volcano which formed part of Esja. See eg. Snæbjörn Guðmundsson: Vegvísir um jarðfræði Íslands. Reykjavík (Mál og Menning) 2015, p.39.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
It is still used wrong, tho. Esjan is a parent category of this one, not a subcategory. Under Esjan should be all of the other categories, namely Móskarðshnúkar and Skálafell. Since Stardalur is an valley, as the name implies, those mountains are not a part of it.
Did find three science articles on the volcano, all seem to argue that it should be one and do not indicate that it is an long accepted categorization. As for me going to the library and picking up a book, In your dreams. Snævar (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with Andy Dingley. I don't really understand the need for the whole 'year of photographing' thing. Photographs by their nature depict the time of their photographing, so there is no difference between 'year' and 'year of photographing' for photographs. I get it for other media: one can make a painting in 2024 that depicts a scene from 1924, but that doesn't work for photographs. Perhaps photographs of photographs could be a very small corner case, but not enough to warrant this rather cumbersome duplicate category tree for all photographs (the vast majority of Commons content). I would support upmerging all 'year of photographing' to normal 'year' categories, but at the least, this one is a good start. Josh (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Do we not want a way to distinguish between year of photographing and year of manufacture? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Although this from Flickr imported category does indeed have a compatible license there, these are images taken from a copyrighted film. Shouldn’t they have a OTRS-ticket each? Qualitätssicherung (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If the problem is with the files they need to be nominated for deletion and then this category will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Categories regarding the US before the 18th century
The United States didn't exist before the 18th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
for all following (United States in <year/decade>-Categories): Nope, no nuking without finding a suitable replacement. And there I'm not convinced yet that we could have a suitable alternative. Yes, we don't have the US which is obvious, but what different umbrella will we use for content in these categories? For the continental territories we might use a general "<year> in North America", but as soon as there are the English colonies that will later make up the territory of the US, I think we shouldn't create a complicated system of new categories. For example, Virginia and Conneticut were places even when there wasn't a US state, but there were about three Colonial structures that organized the pre-US-territories. Remember, there were Crown Colonies, Charter Colonies, border redrawings, renamings of territories. There was at one point a unification of the whole colonial chaos, the Dominion of New England but it was very short-lived (1886-1889). Summing this up: Using the current states and US as the category tree is better than super-political-correct names that nobody will be able to make sense of. We should instead just place a short disclaimer in all categories before 1776, why this structure was chosen despite being anachronistic. --Enyavar (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by decade has categories going back more than two thousand years earlier.) Suggestions for alternative method of organizing media by time & place? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Reply to all USA nominations below There is a difference between the creation date of an object (e.g. a work of art) and the current location of that same object (e.g. USA). A piece of art painted in Itaty in the year 1501 is entitled to be categorised as Category:1501 in Italy; that same piece of art, if it is currently in a museum in New York, is entitled to be categorised as Category:Art of New York City. It is not, however, permissible to categorise that piece of art as Category:1501 in the United States, firstly because it was never created in the United States and secondly because the USA itself did not exist in that year. At best, it is a permitted member of Category:1501 paintings in the United States, since the painting was indeed painted in 1501 and in currently housed in the USA. However, I think that this category is itself rather problematic as it may give the impression that the painting was painted in the USA in 1501; accuracy of this category could be improved by renaming it to Category:Paintings created in 1501 that are currently located in the United States. A bit clunky, but better conveys the intent. In Wikipedia, the problem of what to call that bit of North America before the foundation of the USA is solved by the "Category:Years of the 18th century in the Thirteen Colonies": I recommend this solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Aha! Now that is a fully different reasoning, and one I support. I knew the contents of several other categories like that from the 17th century, and just assumed that we had similar cases here: Files connected to events that happened (e.g.) 1528 in Florida. For that content, a category of "1528 in Florida" is in my opinion fully justified, and would logically fit into "1528 in the US". Same with "Category:Puerto Rico in the 1530s" --> This category is about a building built in Puerto Rico in 1532, so yes my reasoning of above applies, the Florida or the Puerto Rico categories should stay, and so would the US categories (Florida and Puerto Rico were famously NOT part of the 13 colonies).
You are right about the 1500s examples: all we have here, are 1501, 1505 and 1508 and 1509 paintings that by accident are currently residing in the US, and those have really no connection at all to "1501 in the US", and (like this work from 1501 in Urbino) no business staying in the "1501 in the US" category. In my opinion, those files should be recategorized into a category like 1500s works displayed in the United States, and the works themselves must be properly categorized as "<year> work from <country>". Once that is done, we have empty US-categories, and those wouldn't be needed anymore. See also this fresco (not part of 1100s in the US) and this bust (not part of 500 BC in the US). --Enyavar (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment This points to a fundamental problem with the naming order of "<year> in <country>" categories, which indeed would indicate that the primary topic is the year, limited to the geographic/political limits of a country. It would have been better if we had gone with "<country> in <year>", in which the primary topic is the country, specific to a given year. That's a pretty esoteric delineation but in this case it matters. Currently, we are using "1501 in the United States" to put depictions of 1501 which are at some point within the United States (i.e. a painting made in 1501 that is in a US gallery in 2001). Technically, this is okay as a depiction of 1501 may indeed be on display in the US in 2001, but results in weird categories such as these that are nominated.
None of this changes the fact that Category:1501 in the United States is completely counter-intuitive on its face, yet technically legitimate, and could certainly cause some confusion. Category:United States in 1501 would be a lot clearer, and definitely not legitimate, making deletion straight-forward. Basically, there was indeed no United States in 1501 (even conceptually, as far as I am aware), but 1501 can exist (as a concept, or a depiction of that year) in the United States.
So my support depends on the structure used:
If we keep the current structure of "'year' in 'country'" categories, I'd say Keep for now, and we instead need to rely on better hatnotes and diffusion to mitigate the potential confusions.
Alternatively, if we make them "'country' in 'year'", we can clearly Delete any years which precede a country's conception.
This probably doesn't add much but I think the category should be moved / merged and only deleted in worst case. For example, it could be merged into 16th century in North America. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Conclusions
@Joshbaumgartner, Enyavar, and Laurel Lodged: The discussion is now stale for over a fortnight. Now, what should we do with the anachronistic "[year] in [current country]" categories? --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Just like I argued before: it depends on "which year in the US" we're talking about, and what the current content is.
Based on current elements in the category: first recategorize stuff for "1066", "1501", "1505", "1508", "1509", "1529", "1531", "1533" --> afterwards Delete. European renaissance artwork from the era may be displayed in the US today, but it doesn't represent what happened in 1501 in North America.
On the other hand: clear Keep for "1532", "1541", the Puerto-Rico-CfDs and the non-empty decade-CfD. They do represent the area of the times, no other suggestions are convincing me.
Had not checked the 1560s, 1580s, 1590s, 1600s back then, and didn't do so now either. I trust they can be treated by the same standards.
No other [current countries] are up for debate here, and I suggest we don't draw conclusions from these CfDs for other countries/regions. Some may be treated similarly, others may already have established different standards.
PS, @Infrogmation: was also involved in the debate. --Enyavar (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I am okay with a local solution for these specific categories that seems to make sense for those that use them with the caveat that this decision does not set precedent for other topics or situations. That precedent can be set by a larger discussion at that level, but in lieu of it, doing something that seems reasonable for these specific categories is okay. Josh (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I now see @Rathfelder and Prototyperspective: are nominating other anachronistic categories by year. So they are requested to participate in this category discussion, which will define the ultimate fate of anachronistic categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know which such cat I nominated, probably it was simply empty. I already commented above. Probably it should be moved without leaving a redirect or merged. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I dont think there are easy answers to these questions. Each place has its own history, and in some cases - like much of Eastern Europe - variable geography. India, for example, clearly did exist before 1947, but with different boundaries. As far as I can see nobody talked about Pakistan until the 1930s. Germany was not a state until 1870, but it clearly was seen to exist for hundreds of years before that. Poland was repeatedly divided, abolished, and re-established, with variable boundaries. So I think we need proposals not just to delete anachronistic categories but also to propose alternatives. From 1707 to 1801 we can use Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom. Constantinople and Byzantium are the same city in different times and our categories should respect that. Rathfelder (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Sbb1413's proposal is reaching far beyond the categories that are to be discussed here, i.e. "in/of the United States". We should not make general assumptions for the whole world, because there are very different standards: The solution for the United States (however it turns out) can not be transferred to Poland, Sri Lanka and Algeria (who each have a long history although there were long periods where you could claim that the countries were "nonexistent", and certainly didn't have the current name). I am not in favor of how the "Czechia"-CfD turned out... but it was ruled in favor of keeping anachronisms. The same is with India - have a different CfD if it's bothering you.
Now, about the US specifically: Historical correctness is understandably a great goal, but the devil lurks in the details. Right now, we have Category:1755 in Boston, and this stuff is in "1755 in Massachusetts" and in "1755 in the United States". Yes, of course, neither Massachusetts nor the US existed back then, but it is unnecessarily confusing to put these category contents into "1755 in the Province of Massachusetts Bay" which would be in "1755 in British America and the British West Indies" which would be "1755 in Great Britain". Oh, that would be super-correct, but how many people are aware of the correct names of historical governing bodies? How many people would know that the "Colony of Massachusetts Bay" was dissolved in 1686 and governed together with the "Province of West Jersey" (snd others) in the "Dominion of New England", which in turn only existed for three years before new(=old) political entities were (re-)established? Until a better cat-framework can be devised, I prefer anachronism, thanks. If you are bothered by anachronism, place hat-notes with explanations on top.
Still there are things that can be done. Content which is not connected to the subject (like 1501 Italian art that happens to be displayed in US museums today) should be removed from "year-in-US" categories, alright. Empty categories should get deleted until there is fitting content, alright. Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European paintings created in 1501, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European paintings created in 1505, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European paintings created in 1508, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European paintings created in 1509, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Counterpoint: Would you also want to rename Australia (before 1901) as "British Empire"? Puerto Rico is geographical location (an island), what other name do you suggest we use for the location? Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep as Enyavar. --> today's country (area), pictures/works by years in this area --> This is common in Commons (for all countries), for example
--> but keep as all others worldwide (because it is common and would otherwise become too complicated, especially in Europe, where national borders from Romans to Napoleon to WW I, WW II, Yugoslavia War, ... have postponed again and again). -- TripleC85|Usertalk| 22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
It is anachronistic. No such dependent territory existed in that year; only the Spanish colony existed in that year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a big difference to your example, where Puerto Rico didn't exist yet, and wonder what the goal of your discussion is supposed to be. I voted to keep because that's how it's handled around the world in commons. Today's country --> Pictures by year in this area (today's country). In my two examples (US, Italy), the countries did not yet exist in 1344 and 20, such as Puerto Rico in the 1500s, but it is categorized by years in today's territory (country) in the 3 examples. -- TripleC85|Usertalk| 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:1344 in the United States is really the story of Category:1344 in North America since it predates the creation of modern sovereign states in that continent. Italy is a different story. Arguably Italy, or the Italian peninsula at least, has existed from time immemorial. Not so with the USA - it is a political creation with a defined start date. From recorded history, the political history of Puerto Rico is one with many masters, each of which has its own category. It is a case of "presentism" to try to annex history to current countries, simply because they currently happen to occupy that territory. Such anachronistic errors ought to be avoided as they are akin to colonialism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It is a notable tree; that's not disputed. And it's in the USA; that's not disputed. And it was in North America in 1066 - that can be legitimately created if there is sufficient content for such a category. What may not be done, however, is to make it appear that the USA existed in 1066. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Even if we back away from the question of "what was this place called in 1066", categories of the form "YEAR in LOCATION" are understood to contain media which depicts something which occurred at, or was created in, that location, in that year. The mere mention of a year on a plaque isn't that kind of occurrence, especially when the year is in reference to an event which occurred in an entirely different location (the Battle of Hastings, in England). Nor does it make sense to categorize the tree as a year simply because it existed during that year - that sort of logic would make "YEAR in LOCATION" categories an unusable mess. Omphalographer (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European artwork created in 1529, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European artwork created in 1531, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep, the San José Church is one of the oldest buildings in the US. The other stuff (European artwork created in 1532, which are coincidentally in the US now) should be recategorized though, it is not connected in any way to "1532 in the US". --Enyavar (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly an old building in the USA today. It was not an old building in the USA in 1532 since the USA did not exist in that year. Instead, it was a building in North America in 1532, which is how Wikipedia categorises it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete it and it's ilk. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Contains only European artwork created in 1531, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I can agree to that. I'm not sure that any manual recategorisations will even be necessary - they are already adequately parented. As far as I know, no informational or navigational loss will ensue if they deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Would nominator also want to rename Australia (before 1901) as "British Empire"? Puerto Rico is a geographical location (an island), what other name do you suggest we use for the location? Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Reply The "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" (Puerto Rico) did not exist in the 1530s. It is anachronistic to say so. When it was "discovered", Columbus named the island San Juan Bautista. At that time the island was part of the Spanish colony of the Captaincy General of Puerto Rico. So a more correct name would be Category:Captaincy General of Puerto Rico in the 1530s. But since the intent of the category is to retro-fit the current administration into a remote period of time, that will not suit the purposes of the creator. It is therefore best to delete this and similarly named categories until sufficient members exist to fill a category of Category:Captaincy General of Puerto Rico by date. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This category is not named "Commonwealth of...", it is just named Puerto Rico, the common name today in most languages for the geographical location, the island. (Just as Australia existed before 1901, and America existed before 1507 when it was first named as America, etc...) The en:History of Puerto Rico for example includes everything before 1943, and also stuff from before 1776, and even pre-colonial history. --Enyavar (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It's true that the island has existed since time immemorial. But the nominated category is not parented to the island as a geographic island. The problem is that the nominated category is parented to a particular political entity - the USA. Before 1896, it would be anachronistic to make such a parent / child relationship. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Even according to your "historical correct parenting", the category we debate here MUST still exist, only as part of Category:Spanish Empire in the 1530s. If you find a consensus for that kind of categorization, then please build the whole category tree for the entire "Spanish Empire by decade/year", then recategorize "Puerto Rico in the 1530s" to be part of that one - and yes I would agree to that idea as it is more historically correct, I would in fact love that kind of correctness. The recategorization of Puerto Rico from the US to the Spanish Empire might also empty Category:United States in the 1530s, and then... no-one objects to deleting empty categories. But again, this kind of recategorization requires a consensus to do so, and a lot of planning, discussion and convincing others. (I'm led to believe that the Spanish Empire was on the larger side of countries: many countries will be affected by this ambitious idea.) --Enyavar (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I've found that Commons is replete with categorical inaccuracies and anachronistic errors. Yes - a lot of work needs to be done. It has to start somewhere; it might as well be here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
PUERTO RICO did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Counterpoint: Would you also want to rename Australia (before 1901) as "British Empire"? Puerto Rico is geographical location (an island), what other name do you suggest we use for the location? Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep Certainly the island of Puerto Rico existed in 1532. Do you have a suggestion? Should it be retitled Borinquén, Borikén, La Isla de San Juan Bautista de Puerto Rico, or what, and for which years? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Your observation is certainly correct. However many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by decade has categories going back more than two thousand years earlier.) If you wish to suggest a better way of organizing things, please do so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Your observation is certainly correct. However many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by year has categories going back more than a thousand years earlier.) If you wish to suggest a better way of organizing things, please do so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The category contains multiple images that connect to events which happened in North America (in areas of the modern USA), or buildings that were built on (today's) US soil. We need a better suggestion for categories with this content. (Although I would suggest that we don't need categories for each single year, one for the whole decade would be sufficient?) --Enyavar (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The category contains content that connect to events which happened in North America, on (today's) US soil. An outright deletion is out of the question, we first need a better suggestion under which name we group this content for it to be easily found via the category tree. (Although I would suggest that we don't need categories for each single year, one for the whole decade would be sufficient?) But: Some other stuff (European artwork created in 1541, which is coincidentally in the US now) should be recategorized though, it is not connected in any way to "1541 in the US". --Enyavar (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
No need. As I have written below, Commons is replete with such ahistorical errors and anachronistic categorizations. A lot of work needs to be done to correct them. The work starts with preventing the proliferation of fresh errors; a decision here would be a step in the right direction. Thereafter, the heavy burden of correcting the errors that have proliferated over the years can commence. It has to start somewhere; it might as well be 1542 in the United States. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Keep The category is populated by events related to the European settlement of the United States (and Canada). Although I'd be sympathetic to ideas for renaming this (1604 in North America?) those woo would likely be nearly as anachronistic. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
see Category:1604 in Canada: Canada also did not exist, and neither did Mexico. But the land occupied by these nations today existed, and on/around this land, events happened in 1604. Those events/buildings/creations belong in a category like the one this CfD is about. Laurel Lodged, please state what you wish to happen with the content in this category, or which other name you prefer for the category. --Enyavar (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
That is, of course, true, but often we tolerate those anachronisms to gain consistency of category naming over time. Similarly, Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1880. We could rework it, but it would take a lot of difficult work. - Jmabel! talk 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I realise that it is a lot of work. But the rot has to be stopped now to prevent new errors occurring. And the backlog of errors must be corrected. Once they are corrected, there will be consistent - and correct - naming over time. There's never a good time to start; if not now, then when? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there are miscategorizations, for which I made suggestions above. Several of the existing categories can be deleted, after all. But the general principle is that the categorization groups things in a consitent, searchable way (so that they may be found and used). That requires a system, and not a historical hodgepodge. One preferable system is to go by modern borders, unless there are historical or regional definitions that are more consistent. Grouping stuff within "Silesia"-categories (for the region) is preferable, because we otherwise need to consult a historical atlas to find out who held the territory in 1765 or 1654: Prussia, Poland or Austria? There ARE precedences: I have eliminated all "1234 maps of Israel" (i.e. everything prior to the 20th century) as a category, because there was no Israel between 500BCE (the end of ancient Israel) and 1948. The region (whether it belonged to Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Caliphates, Crusaders, Ottomans or Mandates) was consistently called Palestine, so there is a name that makes sense and which was already established in categories. Similarly, I have also eliminated all "1357 maps of Saudi-Arabia" (or UAE), because we do have a sensible alternative in just calling the region "Arabia" (instead of any modern or historical state). Note that I only implemented this change for maps, so far. You see: change is possible, but it took me years. One needs a suitable and consistent alternative, a plan and time and some tenacy.
In your case, I see no such consistent alternative in the first place. Your plan is abolishing the existing system, including geographical entities like Puerto Rico, and replace it with... what? "North America"? Ever-changing names of crown colonies and tribal territories, then "Thirteen Colonies" between 1776 and 1787, also "Nouvelle France" in the Mississippi area, then to be replaced by "Louisiana territory" followed by other various territories until we get the real states? That would be historical correct, but highly confusing for anyone who doesn't know every nook and cranny of the US territorial evolution: the average users who want to categorize their stuff, or would like to find their stuff. Do they know when the Oregon territory was created and dissolved? Must they exactly know when California stopped being a part of the Spanish Empire? The same goes also for every other nation in the world: Nobody may search for "India in the 1520s", because there was no such thing as an "In-di-a", people must go for "Mughal Empire in the 1520s" or "Viyanayagara Kingdom in the 1520s", depending on which part of India they are looking for. And things are never so simple... historical correct category systems quickly degenerate into utter madness, once you look too deep into border changes, conquests, condominiums and vassal states. all the best, --Enyavar (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Stuff that was in the area presently called California, before there was ever a California, should not be categorized as "California". The "average user" would expect to find stuff in California that pertains to California. For everything else, there is "History of North America" by millennium, century, decade and year. That should be more than adequate. To put an Italian renaissance painting that was painted in 1607 into a "1607 in California" category, simply because that painting is currently housed in a Californian museum, is just ahistorical and an egregious example of presentism. It belongs to "Italian art in Californian museums", no more. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
There are towns in Ukraine that have been in 10 different sovereign states in the past 100 years. It would be silly to list all those states for the town. It should only be parented to the present state. Of course if there are establishments in that town that were established during the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then of course that particular object ought to be parented to "Establishments in the Austro-Hungarian Empire". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. This 1607 category is basically focused on Jamestown VG, but let me expound on your California example: The US State of California was established in 1850, and the New Spain province of Alta California was founded in 1804. So your argument is essentially "there has been no California before 1804/1850 --> until then, this must be categorized just like any undocumented parts of North America". You are also bemoaning "1607 in California". Okay, that category doesn't exist, but I would argue that if we had a painting from 1607 that pictures trappers/explorers/natives of that year and region, there is a strong argument to place it in a regional category for California, and not lump it together with stuff that shows Florida in 1607 or Jamestown in 1607 (according to the "It's all North America"-argument). Because of issues with accurate dating, I would prefer to sort stuff of that era by decade or even century and not by year (like "--- in the 1600s" and "... in the 17th century"), but that is the temporal aspect. The geographical aspect is important too. We need a better system than just claiming that everything in the 1600s was "just North America". If stuff that we locate today in California, can be exactly pinpointed as 400 years old today (and was not imported from elsewhere) - then yes, it would be "1624 in California", and thus also "1624 in [the area which is today] the United States".
Look, the region was already explored by Spaniards from the 1510s to the 1540s, and the peninsula (of today's Mexico) was named "California" (here is a popular 1595 map design, labeling it as such). Okay, so the name was already applied, but to another region, right? Welllll... for some weird reason, cartographers in Europe started to believe that the peninsula was rather an island. The whole island was named "California", and it stretched from "Nova Albion" over "P. de Montoroy" (Monterrey CA) over "Canal de S. Barbara" (Santa Barbara CA) over "P.S. Diego" (San Diego CA) to the real peninsula. The mistake persisted throughout the 17th century. Afterwards, IF the area was named at all on maps in the 18th century, it was for a while known as "New Albion", but there was shift back to California, soon after the first European settlements were created in 1769. "California Septentrionalis" (i.e. Northern Cal.) became popular towards the end of the 18th century - understanding that "California Meriodionalis" would be the peninsula. In 1811, "Nueva California" was again distinct from the peninsula which was called Vieja Cal.
My argument stands: The geographical entity of "California" existed before 1804/1850, and if there is earlier stuff we need to categorize, it must go into "California". --Enyavar (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (P.S: written in March iIrc, but signed now.)
Not sure exactly what "either" is supposed to mean here. I presume it means tiptoeing with only one foot (either left or right?). There is no 'both' analog, so this kind of stands alone. I'm not sure if we need this or it can be upmerged into People tiptoeing. If it is kept, it needs a better name, thus either:
Keep to diffuse tiptoeing based on which feet are used. Set up appropriate name and structure, something akin to:
Delete since diffusing based on foot usage is unnecessary. Upmerge contents into Category:People tiptoeing
I'm fine with either solution, which seems better? Josh (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete I have no idea how one tiptoes on one foot. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley I agree tiptoeing on one foot doesn't seem to be a thing. It seems we are conflating the action and the pose in this category. One can certainly be in a position of having only one foot on toes, and the other in some other position, but that's not necessarily the act of 'tiptoeing'. The action is more difficult though, and since most images are still photos, it is hard to determine often whether someone is doing the action of tiptoeing or just posed with a foot on their toes. Josh (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
If possible 1. Keep Because often, "both feet" different purpose from "either feet" in this case. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Question @Andy Dingley, @Benzoyl, is "tiptoeing" a valid word to describe the positioning of feet on their toes, or it is it exclusive to the action of walking without the ball of the foot touching the ground? Would people on their toes or something be better for the pose than People tiptoeing? Josh (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
want to be higher (both feet)
Not want to be higher, a kind of posing (right foot only)
I have literally no idea. I'm not the person to ask. I'd suggest that some sort of dance choreography vocabulary would be the place to look. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
no reason to rename the category. On commons there is no question of unique name. By the way, the name is not unique, as it concerns any studio at batignolles, not even a painting. On commons we have the policy for category naming of artworks to use the artist's name too, to recognize what the category is about. It is just the other way round, we rename categories without artist's name. So the majority of commons artwork categories include correctly the artist's name, see renaming of Un atelier aux Batignolles
Comment There is no other category on Commons named "A Studio at Batignolles", and a category concerning 'any studio at Batignolles' would be named "Category:Studios at Batignolles", so no, the name alone would be unique and unambiguous. However, certain topics do warrant automatically including certain dab info (e.g. ships) and that is probably a good idea for works of art.
@Josh: Thanks for your explanations. The difference between Fantin-Latour, Henri - A Studio at Batignolles and A Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour is not clear to me. But I agree with your last 2 proposals, especially the usual structure A Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour. Perhaps one could name it Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour for reasons of better sorting. I need not explain, that the artwork's title normally is not absolute, given by curators and differs by museum or exhibition.Oursana (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Category:Cross-legged sitting and Category:Agura seem to cover the same territory as this. Agura may be a more specific posture than the other two, but it isn't clear by the category description or contents that it is anything more than just sitting cross-legged in Japanese. Recommend a merge unless there is a real differentiation we can and should delineate. Josh (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: There is also Category:Sitting with legs crossed, but this does appear to be different, as it is for people sitting in chairs or such with one leg over the other, vs. the nominated category which is for sitting down on a flat surface cross-legged, so for this reason I did not include this category in the merge recommendation, but it may still be germane to the discussion. Josh (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Category:Cross-legged sitting could conceivably be broader than Category:People sitting cross-legged if we had media of non-people sitting in such a manner. I did not see any such images there, so for now it seems we just have images of people sitting this way, thus recommending it for merge. Josh (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
These categories all just contain each other in order, and the bottom category contains only Category:WJLA-TV. The "broadcasts" and "on television" categories have no use, and I also don't think it's worth having the "over-the-air television broadcasters" category, especially since MLS does not have any local broadcasters anymore under their Apple TV deal. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete all. Broadcaster categories should not be categorized by every type of sport or league they have ever broadcast. Josh (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
These categories were all created by User:Trigenibinion in late 2023, and they're a mess. They attempt to categorize various audio players (radios, stereos, MP3 players, etc) by different subsets of their features, e.g. whether they can receive FM radio, whether they are mono or stereo, whether they can play music from an SD card, and so on. Most of these categories only contain other categories for more specific subsets of features; there's only a small handful of actual audio player hardware images categorized, and these categories make them harder to find by burying them in subcategories.
Most of the features described by these categories probably don't belong on Commons at all; we aren't a product comparison site. Moreover, we can add multiple categories to the subject file or category describing each of its relevant features; we don't need a hyperspecialized category for the exact subset of features each device supports.
Given the sheer number of categories involved, I haven't added CFD notices to all of them. Please let me know if this is an issue.
@Omphalographer Categorizing by significant functions makes some sense, but building every possible combination of specific feature sets seems a bit much. Some rationalization of this group makes sense, so what solution are you proposing here? Josh (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
What I'm proposing is that we replace these intersection categories on subject pages with categories which atomically describe the salient features of the radios, e.g.
As seen above, a couple of the atomic categories don't exist yet and will need to be created. But the net result should still be a much flatter and easier to navigate category structure. Once this is done, the intersection categories can all be deleted. Omphalographer (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree that it is not user friendly at all to have a lot of subcategories with only one subcategory (and so on), indeed "we don't need a hyperspecialized category for the exact subset of features each device supports". And I agree that for the single files in it, a combination of more general categories would be appropriate. So for me, you can go on! JopkeB (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
In the interest of documentation, here's some of the replacements and related canonicalizations I intend on applying:
I've started burning down some of these categories. They're incredibly sparse - in at least one case, recategorizing a single file (File:Pioneer AVIC-BZ500.jpg) has emptied out over a dozen categories which described it in different ways. Omphalographer (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
And all subcategories. These are kept track of in other places, such as Wikidata and Wikisource itself, and I am skeptical that we need an extra layer of categorization here. It seems like more work than it's worth (considering we have tens of thousands of scans to account for in this categorization project). SnowyCinema (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Support. The only way that these categories would be viable on Commons would be if someone were running a bot to keep the statuses in sync -- there are hundreds of thousands of transcribed texts on the English Wikisource alone; maintaining the statuses through manual edits on Commons is out of the question. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Question: What about a link (parent-subcat) with Category:Aerobics? Reading EN-WP article and seeing EN-WP category I think Category:Aerobic exercise should be a parent category of many subcategories, of which Category:Aerobics should be one. But I do not see a link with Category:Endurance sports because aerobic exercise is not necessarily about endurance. For me endurance sports is about long distances, like marathons and triathlons, see EN-WP for more examples. I think both Commons categories (Aerobic exercise and Endurance sports) need some reorganization. And I 
Agree: "Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively. --JopkeB (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Support. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment @GOUPILLEAU J-Y: Hi, and thanks for trying to take care of this. Unfortunately, it appears that you have left empty categories behind (see Category:Puddle iron). I do not know what sub-categories puddle iron had, so I am unable to check them. Instead of leaving an empty category behind, please either make it a redirect to the correct category or use {{SD}} or {{Bad name}} to have it deleted. Also, once a consensus is reached in a discussion such as this, please close the discussion per the process at Commons:Categories for discussion so the logs can be cleaned up. If you are having any issues with these steps, feel free to ping an experienced user such as Andy or myself for assistance. Thanks! Josh (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with Andy Dingley. I don't really understand the need for the whole 'year of photographing' thing. Photographs by their nature depict the time of their photographing, so there is no difference between 'year' and 'year of photographing' for photographs. I get it for other media: one can make a painting in 2024 that depicts a scene from 1924, but that doesn't work for photographs. Perhaps photographs of photographs could be a very small corner case, but not enough to warrant this rather cumbersome duplicate category tree for all photographs (the vast majority of Commons content). I would support upmerging all 'year of photographing' to normal 'year' categories, but at the least, this one is a good start. Josh (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename category to Category:Captaincy General of Puerto Rico in the 1500s or maybe Category:Colonial Puerto Rico in the 1500s. Category:Puerto Rico is for the Commonwealth which is part of the United States, and it did not exist in the 1500s. We should also have a category for the island itself, but I don't see one yet. Josh (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
want to be higher
Not want to be higher, a kind of posing.jpg)
