Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/06

Category:Paper documents

This is not a useful category. There are many thousands of documents almost all of them are paper. Categories are supposed to be defining. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support. I don't know that there's been much work done on using structured data for PDF and DjVu files, but the origin of such a document (e.g. print vs. electronic) would be a very sensible thing to put there. On the other hand, representing this data as category membership is not at all useful, especially when only a dozen or so documents are categorized. Omphalographer (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Totally pointless overcategorization. Most, or all, documents are made of paper. Unless your talking about digital documents. But it's a distinction without a purpose as far as Commons is concerned because all documents on here are obviously digital. "Digital paper documents" is oxymoronic though. So the category should just be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
 Support per above. Maybe Category:Digitized documents can be used instead of Category:Paper documents for scanned documents. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Does it make any difference to users whether documents were scanned? Rathfelder (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Actually, it is useful for certain experienced users to distinguish the original digital document from the re-scans of its prints, and it is probably encouraged in Wikisource. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:International schools by country of origin

I was going to rename this since British, Japanese, Etc. Etc. aren't countries. Plus the category leads to the schools being put in parent categories for countries when they aren't located there and have nothing to do with countries anyway. Like Category:British international schools being a sub-cat of Category:Education in the United Kingdom, when the schools aren't actually located in the United Kingdom or have anything to do with it.

I'm not sure what to rename the category to though. "By language of origin" doesn't work because international schools teach more then just the respective language. "By culture of origin" doesn't seem right because the schools don't "originate" in the particular cultures. I guess I could just up-merge the sub-cats somehow and delete this outright but that doesn't seem like a good option either. But all this does is lead to schools being wrongly put in categories for countries that they aren't located in and have nothing to do with. So does anyone have a solution? (@Est. 2021: as someone who was involved in a related discussion). Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I think the only solution is to use "by nationality" here, and it is one of the very rare cases where we cannot easily replace "by nationality" of ENWP categories with "by country" or something. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose As I already noted, an international educational organization could per definition be "based" in its home country and have its schools "located" abroad, while still being subject to the ministry of education of the "country of origin" (as usually happens). Daniele Fisichella 14:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
@Daniele Fisichella: I looked through the schools a few weeks ago and couldn't find any that were. Even if a few are "based" in the home country though you can't have a whole category system for schools that aren't based in those countries just because a few of them happen to be since it's obviously wrong and goes against the universality principle. It's not like you couldn't just put the category for those one or two schools in a category for the country without having a whole category system for it anyway though.
No offense, but this just seems like a solution in search of a problem because you didn't think it through before restoring the category. Otherwise what's your proposed way to deal with the issue? We obviously can't just leave a category like Category:Italian international schools in ones for "organizations of Italy" or "by country" when Italian isn't a country and the schools aren't "organization of Italy" because they aren't based there. So what's your solution? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately enough, you're the only one who didn't think it through here. Each country is represented by its demonym. "Italian" here specifically refers to the "country of Italy", not the language. Did you think that Canadian international schools were such because they spoke "Canadian"? Do the Austrian international schools teach "Austrian"? This is getting ridiculous. Italian international schools are such only because they are subject to the Italian ministry of education, just like the French international schools are such only because they're subject to the French ministry of education, and so on. This category tree has nothing to do with language and culture, it is specifically about the home countries whose ministries of education are responsible for these schools abroad. Daniele Fisichella 00:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Italian" here specifically refers to the "country of Italy" @Daniele Fisichella: I'm aware that's what it refers to here. The issue is that's not how things are usually categorized on Commons. Hence why I brought up the Universality Principle. Again, what's your solution to that? Just ignore policy and use "Italian" and the "country of Italy" interchangeably or something? If your going to oppose mine and Sbb1413's solution, cool. But at least provide an alternative that follows the policies and doesn't screw up the current category system.
Italian international schools are such only because they are subject to the Italian ministry of education No. Their "Italian international schools" because they teach the language and culture of Italy. Although if they were subject to the Italian ministry of education that still wouldn't make them "based in Italy." For something to be "based in Italy" it actually needs to have it's headquarters there. Not just be subject to a government body, whatever that means in this case. Can you provide some evidence that Italian international schools are subject to the Italian ministry of education though? From what I understand international schools are subject to the Ministry of Education (or equivalent) in the country where they are located, not the country of origin for whatever cultural tradition they are teaching. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Workers' houses

Merge with Category:Staff residences, especially as Category:Staff is a dab page and it links to Category:Workers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:WikiPortraits at 2025 National Women's Soccer League

WikiPortraits at May 2025 National Women's Socccer League 2A00:23C8:89C4:FD01:D9E4:A165:1392:E4 14:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a meta category for the WikiPortraits project, and we're fine with putting all the NWSL 2025 season photos in this one 2025 category. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Can we put it monthly so it would be much easier for the users? 2A00:23C8:89C4:FD01:D9E4:A165:1392:E4 14:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
The images are already categorized within the subcategories under Category:2025 National Women's Soccer League season (in this case, Category:San Diego Wave at Gotham FC, 16 May 2025). The WikiPortraits categories are hidden and mostly just for WikiPortraits to track uploads and metrics, and distinguishing by month feels a bit arbitrary. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Since we've received more uploads from sports, we've decided to go ahead and category by game (e.g. Category:WikiPortraits at 2025 National Women's Soccer League season (Bay FC at Gotham FC, 21 June 2025)). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:VR Class Sm6 interior

Rename as "... before 2025" to prepare for photos after re-launch TuukkaH (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I would go with a title with a descriptor like ".. in Allegro livery" instead of a date. Taavi (talk!) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
That's an option that would be in line with Category:VR Class Sm6 in Allegro livery (which is all exterior photos). The downside: the livery is not directly related to let alone visible in the interior photos.
A compromise might be "Category:Allegro interior" which is practically a synonym of "Category:VR Class Sm6 interior before 2025" but avoids mentioning the date. TuukkaH (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Corns

cat for this disease should be renamed so it doesnt get confused with Category:Maize. RoyZuo (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

How about Category:Corns (disease) or Category:Corns (skin condition) ? --Túrelio (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Or Category:Corns (pathology), to match the English Wikipedia article? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly ambiguous, the plant is probably more common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    Although the plant isn't normally countable the plural form redirects to the DAB page and lists several topics that are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Palace Romanit

The name falls between two stools: English words with Romanian grammar. Should be either "Palatul Romanit" or "Romanit Palace". Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm agree, but lets uniform with the other categories under Category:Palaces in Bucharest.--DnaX (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't looked before starting this, but they are not uniform with one another. Some are in English (e.g. Category:Cotroceni Palace), some are in Romanian (e.g. Category:Palatul Patriarhiei). I honestly don't think it is important that they are uniform, just that each goes one way or the other. "Palace Romanit" sounds almost as odd in English as "Romanit Palatul" would in Romanian. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Australian culture abroad

I think this is surplus to requirements. It's currently got one category "Australian cuisine by country" but I hardly think this is appropriate... I don't think we need this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it now has several other subcats, and is now justified. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
It's got the wrong name though - it should be Category:Cultural relations of Australia. Would this be acceptable? It would harmonize the existing category scheme. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
This category schema is about cultures, not countries, so "cultural relations" is not accurate. Of course you are welcome to create such a category yourself if you'd like.
With that in mind, do you feel better about the name? It parallels the existing category schema for cultures by context/location (such as French culture abroad and Japanese culture abroad) and fills a need without reporting to the more awkward and needlessly wordy alternative "Australian culture outside Australia". I mean, I guess it could be "Culture of Australia abroad" but I think that's less intuitive, definitely more ambiguous. -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I’m not entirely averse to the name. I see your point, now I see the broader category structure it’s not entirely unreasonable.I withdraw my objection to the category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I  Support renaming "X-ian culture abroad" to "cultural relations of X" per Chris.sherlock2, as this can avoid ambiguous adjectives like "American", "Congolese", "Dominican", "German", etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't like that "Cultural relations of". It suggests that a country is involved, not a culture. It does not work for subcats of, for example, Category:Basque culture or Category:Culture of Roma people, or literally hundreds of others of cultures not associated with nation states. (BTW, Some things that are specifically cultural are currently under Category:Basque diaspora in the United States.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
So, what should be the main category for "X-ian culture abroad"? Maybe Category:Cultures abroad? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do we need such a category? But, yes, if we need it, then Category:Cultures abroad is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Animated films

I'm not so sure all these "by film" categories are useful for animated films specifically. Otherwise you just end up with a wall of parent categories for specific films that are just circular and serve no purpose like with Category:Maya the Bee: The Honey Games or Category:Only Yesterday. Although I'm not sure which "by film" categories should be gotten rid of or otherwise cut back either. I just don't think it helps people organize media or find categories for animated films if they are in 15 different "animated films by" parent cats, a lot of which are circular and/or don't contain media themselves. So does anyone have any ideas? Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment "Animated films", in and of itself, seems reasonable. Where the problem arises is all of the cross-cutting metacategories, e.g. animated films by director, country, genre, language, setting, topic, year... Can we whittle this down a bit, ideally all the way down to "by title"? Omphalographer (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kabyle language by country

Kabyle is in the country of Algeria so I don't see how this category can exist. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Works impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic

Surprise! It's yet another film metacategory. The assertion "this film was impacted/postponed/suspended due to the pandemic" is a statement about the film which belongs on Wikipedia or in Wikidata, not on Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Education buildings in Metro Cebu

No longer useful category. The remaining occupant, Category:Schools in Mandaue, has been moved to Category:Schools in the Philippines by city, where it is more appropriate. For buildings of those schools themselves, their prospective categories could be categorized under Category:Education buildings in the Philippines by city (like, "Education buildings in Mandaue", "Education buildings in Liloan, Cebu" et cetera), following standards of other countries (like those of Category:Education buildings in Russia by city and Category:Education buildings in Italy by city), in which even rural incorporated places are categorized for as long as those are legitimate municipalities (international definition, not Philippine definition). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Legacy of Thamewali

Is Category talk:Legacy of Thamewali a personal category or a topical category? Or possibly it would be better as a gallery page? In any case, it should have parent categories. Also, why is a user categorized in this category? (I first asked this on the category talk page, but was ignored, so I am starting a proper Cfd.) Except for the thing about maybe being better as a gallery, all of the same issues apply to Category:Thamewali 2025, Category:Street of Thamewali. Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Translating the description suggests that this is simply a collection of images related to Category:Thamewali, and should probably be merged thence. Omphalographer (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
SohaibAhmadu, who for some reason has not responded here, has now written on the category page, "This category features recent and unique images from the town of Thamewali and its surroundings. It includes views of the city, lush green fields, rural landscapes, scenic spots, seasonal changes, and everyday village life. These images aim to highlight the cultural, agricultural, and natural beauty of Thamewali. If you have photos taken in or near Thamewali during 2025, please contribute them here to showcase the true essence of this beautiful region." That sounds to me like a gallery, not a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:BAT Bantam

Renaming to Category:BAT F.K.24 Bantam to harmonize within Category:B.A.T. aircraft 45.189.151.17 15:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Islands (Pörtschach am Wörther See)

This category is wrong, for there is only one island in Pörtschach am Wörthersee: Blumeninsel. Kapuzinerinsel next to it is part of municipality of Maria Wörth. (I already removed it from this cat.) So, this category should be deleted. And what about the gallery page Pörtschach Inseln which hence is also wrong? Eweht (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Warner Bros. fandom

"Warner Bros. fandom" is not an actual thing Trade (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a thing in the sense that there are fans of Warner Bros. properties. However, one of the two things in the category, Category:Warner Bros. character goods, doesn't show fandom, so that could be removed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tanks of World War II by country

What does "of" a country mean, vs. "in"? Because any reasonable meaning of this is going to raise contradictions for tanks, where an enemy (or even an ally's) tank is in a foreign country. See File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-174-1154-13, Jugoslawien, französischer Panzer H39.jpg for an example: a French tank, in German service, in Jugoslavia. It is not "of" Jugoslavia. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cathedrals in Georgia

Category:Orthodox cathedrals in Russia

  • Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox cathedrals in Russia. I have created a new category for Oriental Orthodox cathedrals and split off the members to it. All that remains in this category is Eastern Orthodox cathedrals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose the rationale. Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox refer to the same thing in common English usage. Oriental Orthodox is a completely different thing. There's no Orthodox world of which Eastern Orthodox would be a part and Oriental Orthodox another. (Otherwise you should also add the Jewish Orthodox and the Marxist Orthodox to the lot.) The word Orthodox here is not ambiguous at all. Place Clichy 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
      • Reply to @Place Clichy: and see also a similar comment elsewhere. I disagree; the two are not the same thing. There are many parts of the world where both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox cathedrals may be found. See for example Category:Cathedrals in the United States. It is a bad idea to conflate the two denominational families into a single ambiguous term. The two families separated quite early in the history of Christianity and remain unreconciled. It is not the job of Commons to pretend that the two families are in communion with one another by deliberately using ambiguous terms when unambiguous alternatives are readily available.
      Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
      I agree in large part with you: it is a bad idea to conflate the two denominational families. However this is not and never was what this category does. This category (and any category named Orthodox foo) is not for the Oriental Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox are not Orthodox, they are a completely different tradition, albeit just as respectable and old and noteworthy. The Oriental Orthodox are never called "the Orthodox" in a stand-alone fashion, and the term is therefore not ambiguous. The fact that some (incl. the English Wikipedia, unfortunately) use the expression Eastern Orthodox to describe Orthodox Christianity is unnecessary. There are also Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Marxists and Orthodox Baháʼís, and we don't confuse them because they also have "Orthodox" in their name.
      The course of action to take is therefore to move our of Orthodox... categories the eventual content related to Oriental Orthodoxy that some good-faith users understandably place there sometimes. It may also be to clearly label these categories to help users. It is not to create a non-existent "Orthodox" level that would be a grouping of Orthodox proper and Oriental Orthodox, as you state yourself. Place Clichy 11:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
      @Place Clichy: I'm glad that we are agreed that it is a bad idea to conflate the two denominational families. Likewise, I'm glad that we're agreed that there has been sloppy / casual naming both here and in Wiki that is unfortunate and needs to be fixed. I feel less sympathetic to the idea that disambiguation is necessary for non-Christian religions that happen to have the word "Orthodox" in their name; that's unlikely to be a problem for most readers, but I would not oppose a DAB should you consider it necessary. Where we disagree is with your claim that the "...Oriental Orthodox are never called "the Orthodox" in a stand-alone fashion". The following Churches self-describe as "Othodox": Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church and Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Who are we to tell these Churches that they got it wrong? While the nomenclature drove me crazy when I doing categorisation work in the area, I've gotten my head around it now. But if I, an experienced editor in the Christian space, could fall into categorical error about the Oriental Churches, then how much more likely is the average reader to succumb to the same mistake? I believe that it behooves us to provide additional help, even at the risk of consuming extra bytes and verging into tautologies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:People associated with James Bond films

Yet another IMDb-style film category, associating people with films, but not categorizing any actual media.

Omphalographer (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Medic Tree Mapping on WED 2025

I don't understand the purpose of this category and its subs? A.Savin 19:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @A.Savin, please visit the campaign page Medic Tree Mapping Campaign where you can find more details. Your valuable suggestions are most welcome. -- Suyash Dwivedi (💬) 06:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
@Suyash.dwivedi: How is, for example, this photo from 2012 related to a Wikimedian meeting in 2025? --A.Savin 08:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox metropolitan cathedrals in Greece

  • Rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox cathedrals in Greece per standard convention Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose the rationale. I don't think that's really necessary, or that there is even such a convention. There are many categories about Orthodox topics here that use just Orthodox and have done so for a very long time. That usage is correct and even if Wikipedia uses Eastern Orthodox in many such occasions I do not believe we should automatically import their mistakes. I'm not really sure how often Eastern Orthodox is actually used in English, but orally I always hear people just say Orthodox when referring to these churches and beliefs, and I am pretty confident it is the majority usage in the English language.
On another note, the name of this category also includes the word metropolitan, and I believe it is important to keep it in the context of Greece. There, bichops are actually most frequently referred to as metropolites, and their churches are most often called metropoles rather than cathedrals. Keeping this word in the category name makes it more precise. Place Clichy 16:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Reply to @Place Clichy: I think that it is necessary to disambiguate this - and all such categories - from their Oriental counterparts. While I acknowledge that the Oriental Orthodox presence in Greece, apart from the Armenian Church, is not large, nevertheless, the possibility for confusion remains. In general, it is best to keep the two tree structures separate: Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, even if in some cases it becomes almost a tautology.
Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: Answered in large part there. However you did not comment on the metropolitan part. Would you agree to keep metropolitan as part of the name, for Greece, regardless of the discussion on the Eastern part? Place Clichy 11:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
@Place Clichy: Regarding metropolitan -it's tricky. As the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople page shows, the Patriarchate's structure consists of "...six archdioceses, 66 metropolises, 2 dioceses and one exarchate, each of which reports directly to the Patriarch of Constantinople with no intervening authority". The term "metropolis" in Eastern Orthodoxy, especially Greek Orthodoxy, is usually synonymous with eparchy or diocese. But this is not always the case. Sometimes a metropolitan can have oversight of multiple eparchies, much like an Archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church. It's not always clear when the different meanings are in use, especially in Greece. I'd prefer to omit the term altogether rather than get involved in micro-categorising those eparchies that are not true multi-eparchial metropolises but mere single-eparchy entities. In the Russian tradition, a metropolis seems to be closer to the Roman Catholic usage. So I'd prefer to avoid having one format for Greek Orthodoxy and a different format for Russian Orthodoxy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Taufzettel

isnt this just a translation of Baptism certificate? Rathfelder (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Animated cartoon series

An "cartoon" is by it's very definition animated. The correct name for this category would be "animated television series" Trade (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. Not all cartoons are animated; for instance, a cartoon in a print newspaper certainly isn't. Omphalographer (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
So removee the comic part from the category then Trade (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stock certificates by year

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Stock certificates from the United Kingdom by year.

shouldnt these appear in Documents by year and its subcategories? Rathfelder (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

They already do.-Karsten11 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Many of them dont. American, for instance. Rathfelder (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:PD Coa China

The templete of this cat is deleted no longer needed cat. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Flag-China 獅眠洞 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kazakhstan Military History Museum

This category and Category:Astana Museum of Military History depict the same object and should be merged. Zenwort (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:The Limeburners, Willisham

This category, created on 2024-03-28 , duplicates Category:The Limeburners, Offton , which was created on 2023-01-03. These should be merged and nominating for discussion seems to be the only way to do this. The pub website identifies itself as being in Offton (village and civil parish) but OSM suggests it's entirely within the civil parish of Willisham (Suffolk, UK), so it would also be useful to discuss what the name should be. Tæppa (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saratov State Agrarian University

Переименование организации Виктор Еськов (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

What is your suggestion here, Виктор Еськов? Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Dear Alavense!
This organization has been renamed. Saratov State Agrarian University named after N.I. Vavilov (SSAU) is now officially known as Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Saratov State University of Genetics, Biotechnology and Engineering named after N.I. Vavilov" (Vavilov University as short name). The renaming took effect on July 8, 2022, under Order No. 427 of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture (link).
Best regards,
Victor Eskov! Виктор Еськов (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified locations in Palmerston North

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Palmerston North is already a reasonably specific location (a city in New Zealand); it's hard to imagine a realistic situation where we would know that an image was of a location in this city, but where the exact location was both unknown and important to know. Omphalographer (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified locations in Hastings, New Zealand

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per my reasoning in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/06/Category:Unidentified locations in Palmerston North. Same situation, different NZ city. Omphalographer (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
you removed the photos that were in the category? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
tbf i dont really care if this cat gets deleted TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
The only image I can see which Rathfelder removed from the category recently was File:Hastings561.JPG. Which seems appropriate; the photo is of a fire engine, not a location. Omphalographer (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified locations in Napier, New Zealand

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per my reasoning in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/06/Category:Unidentified locations in Palmerston North. Same situation, different NZ city. Omphalographer (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified locations in Dunedin

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per my reasoning in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/06/Category:Unidentified locations in Palmerston North. Same situation, different NZ city. Omphalographer (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified vehicles in New Zealand

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

For categories that are very likely to be reused in the future, we do, actually. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
ill note the user that said there's nothing in them, removed everything in them TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
There was one picture of a bus. Its not very clear what is meant by Unidentified vehicles . There are many thousands of pictures with vehicles which are not identified. Why do we want to categorise them? Rathfelder (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified organisms in New Zealand

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Acts/revised

Request deletion, category has been deprecated in favour of year-based categories for revised acts as part of restructuring (see Category:Scottish Acts 2000/revised). Penguin1737 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Acts/corrections

Request deletion, category has been deprecated in favour of year-based categories for correction slips as part of restructuring (see Category:Scottish Acts 2001/corrections). Penguin1737 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Academic institutions

Is the distinction between Category:Educational institutions and Category:Academic institutions a valid one? I mean, almost all "academic institutions" provide education, and they may or may not conduct research. On the other hand, the research institutes that don't provide education are generally not called "academic institutions". Even if we restrict "academic institutions" to institutions that are dedicated to both education and research, that can exclude a lot of higher education institutions that don't conduct research. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Overcategorization in Category:Scooby-Doo

Large amount of categories in Category:Scooby-Do which either server no real purpose, can better bee dealt witth already existing Scooby Doo subcats or are MDb-style "associating people with films" category

Please see Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:5500:251A:5F4C:D17E:F4DF for more context

None of the characters located in these categories are primarily or even mainly known for their role in these (out of many) movies. This belong on IMDB, not Commons

This category have no actual files. There is no consensus that every "Cosplay of" category needs an fandom category so this is unecessary

Film score composers by film series is being discussed here

The scope of this category is completely arbitrary and unuseful

A clone of Category:Scooby-Doo characters

There is no consensus for works to be categorized by work by country by city. This is not useful

All of the content of these categories are just categories for different movies with none of the files actually being related to the collections. This belongs once again on IMDB, not Commons.

Categories like "Films by actor" have already been deleted so this one should be too

This is a blatant overlap with Category:Cosplay of Scooby-Doo. There is no reason stated in the category for this having to be seperate

--Trade (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You give three different reasons for deleting various ones of these. I think each category listed in a given CfD should have the same rationale. It's complicated when there are different reasons, because a person giving their opinion might need to comment differently for each of them. It also makes it harder for the closing admin.
Also, you might notice that one of these is now deleted. :) --
Better? @Auntof6: --Trade (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Not if they're all in one CfD. The scope is too wide. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm somewhat wary of demanding too much from participanting Commons users by splitting this into 8 different deletion requests Trade (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe if you approach it differently. Propose restructuring the whole category. List how you think the categories should be. List the ones you think aren't needed in the structure and why. That would mean people can focus on the restructuring instead of reasons for deleting individual categories. How does that sound. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
There's the same issue with categories related to Mickey Mouse (and I'm sure other cartoon characters). Although I agree this could be laid out better, it would be ridiculous to do 100s of different CfDs for every pointless category created by the same IP at this point. Maybe we could all agree that whatever categories were already created by the same IP and/or are along the same lines as ones that have already been discussed should just deleted without the need for a bunch of ongoing deletion requests. I think that would be an easier and less time consuming way to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Even then there have still been a couple of categories which survived deletion. I would not be too worried about the IP. We have already been through the worst of it Trade (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe your right. I guess it doesn't really matter. At least it's being dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I made a start removing some of the more clear/egregious overcats I don't think anyone would object to being removed, in due part also to make the discussion easier about the remaining ones. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1, JopkeB, Enhancing999, WFinch, Jmabel, ReneeWrites, and Bedivere: --Trade (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping! I agree with upmerging/sidemerging and deleting most of these. Category:Scooby-Doo directors should be its own separate CfD however, as I'm not sure I agree with giving it the "Actors of [film]" treatment.
Speaking of overcategorization, check the categories at Category:Scoob! --ReneeWrites (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Regarding Scoob! feel free to nominate them to deletion yourself. I have little interest in doing so @ReneeWrites: --Trade (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I completely get that, it's a whole mess to have to untangle. And the problem there is different from the ones we've discussed before. Probably should be talked about and dealt with entirely separately. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Not even that. I just feel meh towards the Scoob! category. It just doesnt bother me the same way as all the other CfD's did Trade (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Support whatever we have to do to have fewer categories in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Whatever the solution is here to have less of these types of categories per ReneeWrites and Jmabel. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I quite agree with any effort to simplify the structure of this category, per ReneeWrites—yikes on Category:Scoob!—and Jmabel. — WFinch (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are there objections to me moving the contents of the "Mystery Inc." categories up to the "Scooby-Doo characters" categories and tagging it for deletion? Mystery Inc. refers to the main cast and would technically exclude villains, but there is as of yet no media of the villains, so they're duplicate categories. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    No objection from me. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done. Category:Mystery, Inc. and Category:Cosplay of Mystery, Inc. are now empty; the latter has had an open CfD since 2023, so I'm not sure I can tag them for speedy deletion. Content was already properly categorized, so moving things up turned out not to be needed. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    @ReneeWrites: I deleted that latter one and closed the other CfD. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    @ReneeWrites: I deleted the other one, too, for being empty.
    Technically, no work should be done on this until this discussion is closed, so I was going to close it. However, I can't close it, because I commented in it. Sort of. Actually, my comments from elsewhere were copied here. But anyway, let's hope an uninvolved admin will close this soon. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Norfolk, England

I don't think the parent category is necessarily bad. But the name is problematic for many of the subcategories, where it should be obvious anyway that the English Norfolk is meant. For example, I meant to create Category:Norfolk, England, in the 17th century, but then realized how that (correct, but non-existant) naming scheme clashes with the (incorrect, but existing) Category:Norfolk, England, in the 19th century.

My suggestion is that we should rather work with Category:Norfolk in the 19th century in all cases where the ", England" is not the end of the category name. That also makes the respective categories easier to assign. --Enyavar (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose removing the "England" part of "Norfolk, England". Category:Norfolk in the 1900s can be confused with Category:Norfolk, England in the 1900s, Category:Norfolk, Virginia in the 1900s, and others. I think the better way is to devise an autocat (short for "automatic categorization") scheme so that a comma gets added after a name like "X, Y". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
This is just a discussion - any idea how to solve this is okay. So I would also support your idea of a template change. Another idea is to use bracket notation: Category:Norfolk (England), which would prevent the need to change any templates. --Enyavar (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Welsh National Assembly Acts/revised

Request deletion, category has been deprecated in favour of year-based categories for revised acts as part of restructuring (see Category:Welsh National Assembly Acts 2019/revised). Penguin1737 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Male people

RESTORE the longstanding commons practice of categorising HUMAN-related media files as Human not simply "People". This was changed recently & after only a VERY LIMITED discussion.

Lacks specificity & out of alignment with wikip, wd, etc. Lx 121 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

the TL,DR would be:

"people" & "human" DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. for clarity, specificity, & disambiguation (as per commons goals, scope, etc.) most of the categories of human-related media files should be labelled as "human" not simply as "people" -stuff.

for notable (or otherwise specific) individuals, they could debatably be categorised as both "persons" & (when applicable) "humans". Lx 121 (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)


i see that Sbb1413 has been busy forum shopping his pet issue until he got a favourable outcome? & this one slipped by with a pretty limited discussion.

  • and now i see that the discussion was "closed" BY THE USER (Sbb1413) WHO CREATED IT* which is grossly inappropriate, especially when there is NOT any clear consensus on the action requested by that user (which the user THEN goes on to implement anyway).

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08/Category:Male_humans

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08/Category:Male_humans&action=history

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/08/Category:Male_humans&oldid=993563871


& HERE is some of what is wrong with conflating 'human' with 'people'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

VS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person


ALSO SEE, for example, 'WikiData' (which clearly disambiguates the 2 terms):

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5 - human

VS

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q215627 - person


https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q84048850 - male human (Q84048850)

'versus'

the ASSOCIATED commonscat (recently renamed by sbb1413)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_people


To anyone with more than a grade-school level of english this is all rather obvious & category names like:

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Black_and_white_photographs_of_male_people"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_of_standing_female_people"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shadows_of_male_people"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_people_doing_handstands"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_people"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_people_by_stage_of_development"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_people_wearing_toe_nail_polish_by_color"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Services_for_female_people"

"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_of_nude_female_people"


sound both dumb & 'painfully' awkward. This is not "simple english" wmc; commons policy is that we operate "centrally" on standard english, & translate for other languages. Lx 121 (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

* & just as a REALLY OBVIOUS point of biology:

this category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Primates_(male)

belongs here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_humans

NOT here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_people

any college/university biology (or english) professor would point that out in course level "101", on day 1.

Lx 121 (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121: See also: COM:Village pump/Proposals#Separate categories for humans and people. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scooby-Doo directors

Per the discussion of Category:Films by actor we should consider deleting this one as well given the similar scope Trade (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. Not for this category specifically (more on that in a bit) but the broader structure of Category:Films by director, which I believe should be kept.
Part of the problem with categorizing films by actor is the fact that films can have dozens of actors or more, which results in overcategorization, and no distinction can be made between actors with a significant presence and actors with only a few lines of text (or none at all). This bled over into other categories where people started getting categorized for guest roles, guest appearances on talk shows, or having participated in game shows or contests.
On the other hand, the role of a director is clear and significant, and a film typically only has one (sometimes two). So that are three problems categorizing films by actor that categorizing them by director doesn't have.
While Commons isn't Wikipedia and vice-versa, I do sometimes look to how they do things over there to see how discussions have shaken out, and on Enwiki they don't categorize films by actor either, but they do by director.
However, this category specifically should be deleted for violating the universality principle at COM:CATPRI, because this is just not how these things are categorized. I believe the following categories should be emptied and deleted for the same reason: Category:Batman directors, Category:Harry Potter directors. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites: I think you are talking about keeping Category:Films by director (e.g. Category:Films by S. S. Rajamouli) and deleting Category:Directors by film (e.g. Category:RRR directors). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, exactly :) ReneeWrites (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. While there are (typically!) fewer directors involved in a film than actors, the fundamental issue remains that tracking the cast/staff list of films simply isn't what Commons is for. This information should be maintained in Wikidata, not Commons categories, and should be surfaced on Commons by {{Wikidata infobox}}. Omphalographer (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Zee Hindustan

Zee Hindustan is change name to Zee Bharat since January 2024 YehudaHubert (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support as an uncontroversial move. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified hotels in New Zealand

We dont keep categories open just in case something gets put in them. Rathfelder (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Keep We do for ones like this about "unidentified" whatever if they seem likely to be reused. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do we think there would be more unidentified hotels appearing than any other sort of building? Wouldnt it be better to just put such files in hotels in New Zealand? Rathfelder (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
On the latter question: no. It is better to mark things as needing identification beyond just what sort of thing they are and what country they are in. Categories like this call attention to the fact that further ID would be useful. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Most categories are full of stuff that could be further identified. Categorisation is a process of successive approximation. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Non-human animals

why does this category exist? what EXACTLY is a "non-biological" definition of the term "animal" supposed to be applied to? Lx 121 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as creator, plus the precedent of Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Inanimate objects. I no longer think such categories are needed, as they are found to be redundant to main categories. I have already proposed to have two separate categories on humans at COM:VPP: one covering the biological aspects, and the other covering the individuals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • comment - we already have a system for that. everything about humans gets filed under "human" & individuals get filed under "people by name" (with much more generous rules on notability than @ wp/en), AND we have cats for wikimedia users pics too... :) Lx 121 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Welsh Parliament Acts/revised

Request deletion, category has been deprecated in favour of year-based categories for revised acts as part of restructuring (see Category:Welsh Parliament Acts 2021/revised). Penguin1737 (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Welsh Parliament Acts/corrections

Request deletion, category has been deprecated in favour of year-based categories for correction slips as part of restructuring (see Category:Welsh Parliament Acts 2024/corrections). Penguin1737 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Welsh Parliament Acts/Explanatory Notes

Request deletion, category has been deprecated in favour of year-based categories for explanatory notes as part of restructuring (see Category:Welsh Parliament Acts 2024/Explanatory Notes). Penguin1737 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Images from Embassy of Romania to Czech Republic archives

please delete, wrong title Gampe (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scrapyards

Are scrapyards different from junk yards? Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment As far as I'm aware, they're synonymous. It looks as though we currently use both terms concurrently (e.g. Category:Junk yards in the United Kingdom vs. Category:Scrapyards in the United Kingdom); some work will be needed to sort this out. Omphalographer (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified hotels in Panama

Empty and not useful Rathfelder (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Great Britain in the 19th century

in the 19th century it was called the United Kingdom Rathfelder (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It was not. Great Britain and the United Kingdom are separate and overlapping entities.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) was established on 1 January 1801. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
But the Great Britain category is still redundant to categories like Category:United Kingdom in the 19th century, Category:England in the 19th century and Category:Wales in the 19th century. Also, Category:Great Britain in the 18th century is redundant to the main category Category:Kingdom of Great Britain, as it only existed in the 18th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Births in Qu'Appelle Valley, Saskatchewan

Created solely to contain Category:Buffy Sainte-Marie. Since its creation, a number of high-quality sources have asserted that it's not her birthplace. There's no parent "People of..." category (the most obvious warning sign that it shouldn't have been created in the first place, as it bypasses the long-established hierarchy), and from looking over the category tree for the town, there's no real need for any such subcats. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Humanitarian crisis

"Humanitarian crises" would be more appropriate as it's an plural Trade (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to "huminatarian crises" if the category is about multiple individual crisis. However, if it covers the general theme of humanitarian crisis, it can stay singular. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Male Caftan from Morocco

Is caftan a proper noun? 186.173.199.95 21:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Male Caftan from Morocco in art

Caftan or caftan? 186.173.199.95 21:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  • What do you think needs discussion? If you have a suggestion or see a problem, please be specific. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
    Is it C or c? Are you using a crash helmet? 186.173.200.7 02:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Children wearing Moroccan Caftan

"caftan"? 186.173.199.95 21:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@186.173.199.95: What's your problem with the category? Kaftan or Caftan (both spellings are used). If you have a particular recommendation, state it - otherwise I'm unsure what you want discussed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
caftan or Caftan? That is the problem. Like to be or not to be... 186.173.200.7 02:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

moved category: Category:Logos YehudaHubert (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment - what are you recommending be done here? The category is already redirected. Omphalographer (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
There are probably dozens of files per day that currently a bot automatically moves from Category:Logo to Category:Logos. As far as I can see they are all intended for Category:Logos. If Category:Logo is turned into a disambiguation page, then someone is going to have to do all those moves manually. Maybe it would make more sense to use Category:Logo (disambiguation) for disambiguation. Marbletan (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Liminal spaces

POV category without clear scope or criteria. A.Savin 07:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Keep Categories with a subjective scope should also have a right to exist if the topic is sufficiently important. See en:Liminal space (aesthetic). --XRay 💬 07:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep Liminal spaces are a legitimate topic. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep Per XRay and Chris.sherlock2. Liminal spaces are very important themes. We have also 20+ articles in various Wikipedias about liminal spaces. "POV" is not a valid deletion reason. Юрий Д.К. 13:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    @Юрий Д.К.: But we are not on Wikipedia here. (If you like a more simple example, the fact that WP has the article Asshole obviously does not mean that on Commons a Category:Assholes with tons of subcats, including Category:Vladimir Putin and many others, would be justified.) Please explain, how would you decide which images are showing "Liminal spaces" and which are not. One of my images was added there for an unknown reason, although it was never intended as a picture of a "liminal space". --A.Savin 19:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    @A.Savin: Personally, I would add "Liminal spaces" almost always to interior images which cause fear/anxiety for me (empty/abandoned malls and rooms, unusually empty places and corridors). Probably some "dead" and "fear" landscapes also good for this category (like File:At Killarney Lake (8324324327).jpg, File:Deadvlei3.jpg and File:Lençóis Maranhenses 928a.jpg). Your image calms me down, not scares ;). I would not to add them to the category. Юрий Д.К. 20:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, but that's exactly the description of a purely POV category outside Commons' scope. Just like "Beautiful flowers" or "Cute kittens" or the like. --A.Savin 22:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Keep scope or criteria could also be made more clear without deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Go ahead and make it more clear. As long as it isn't, this remains a POV category. And: CfD is not a poll. --A.Savin 22:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Could you please link which policy / policy-section you're referring to if any? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
    Common sense. --A.Savin 23:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Funeral of Alan Simpson at Arlington National Cemetery

Unused category since 14 March 2025 Ooligan (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Splendeurs des oasis d'Ouzbékistan

I don't see a reason for this to not be called Category:The splendours of Uzbekistan's oases Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's just the official name of the exhibit as it happened in the Louvre Museum. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lahov (coat of arms)

Should be renamed: "Coats of arms of Logau family". Silesian nobility does not fit the way polish coats of arms are named. It's more like german nobillity. GerritR (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Belbroughton Club

This category depicts the same building & establishment as Category:Belbroughton's Workmen's Club with a trivial difference in name. The building was called "Belbroughton's Workmen's Club" when it was listed (legally protected building) in 1967 and seems to now be the same type of establishment but called "Belbroughton Club". I propose their contents is merged but which category or naming convention to use isn't clear. Tæppa (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Belbroughton Club as COMMONNAME. Listing names aren't especially robust. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Use "Belbroughton Club" so delete that category and move Category:Belbroughton's Workmen's Club to it as that's the older category. Today the name on the pub is "Belbroughton Club" and the official website and WhatPub use this name so per above it appears to be the common name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Collections of Józef Piłsudski Institute of America by year

Can these all be in documents of Poland by year, instead of Poland by year? Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Internet Archive document notesofsitesof00hunt

Needs a proper title Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Notes of sites of Huron villages in the township of Tiny (Simcoe County) and adjacent parts, per the source. It's a bit wordy, but that's the title. Omphalographer (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Omphalographer. - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scans

I feel like this is to ambiguous to be useful since most files on here are scans of something and there's already exiting categories for specific types of documents. Like there's Category:Children's books for children's books, obviously. But then there's also Category:Scanned children's books even though essentially everything in other subcategories of the parent are scans of children's books. So the category for "scanned" books is totally pointless.

Also you have categories like Category:Stamps as a child of this even though some are scanned and some aren't depending on the source. It would of course be an impossible waste of time to create separate "scanned images of X" categories for stamps, let alone anything else on here, to fix the issue. So I think the files and subcategories in this should just be removed and/or up-merged depending on the situation. Adamant1 (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Here's some thoughts:
  • Files definitely shouldn't be categorized directly as Category:Scans. Files should be diffused from there to more appropriate categories - creating them if necessary - and the overall category should be tagged as {{CatCat}}.
  • Category:Scanned images by user and its subcategories probably should not exist. If they do, they should be under Category:User categories, not here, per COM:USERCAT.
  • Category:Scans by source is fine, though. The files in these categories should eventually be categorized further based on their topic, but this is a reasonable first pass for organizing imports from GLAMs.
  • Category:Scans by scanner brand and Category:Scanned with slide scanners, and their subcategories, definitely should not exist. This is pure metadata; if it's going to be collected at all it belongs in SDC, not categories. (We don't generally have categories for what model of camera a photo was taken with, and scanners leave less of an individual touch on their output than cameras do.)
  • Categories for images from individual works should be diffused.
  • I agree that Category:Stamps doesn't belong here at all. Some images of stamps are certainly scanned, but that's not an interesting property of the image.
Omphalographer (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: What do you think about the templates and/or categories for scans of individual works like Template:Scan from 'Modern Homes', T. Raffles Davison, 1909. They seem kind of pointless with Wikidata Items and categories. Like with that book, I assume Category:Scans from 'Modern Homes', 1909 should just be the name of the book without "scans" in the category name and the template could probably just be gotten rid of because it would have a Wikidata item and infobox. Now that I look at them it's not even clear how the templates are being used anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
It looks as though those templates are being used to generate {{Information}} templates on file pages. I don't have any strong feelings on that practice, but I agree that the templates shouldn't be categorized in content categories, and especially not at this high of a level. Omphalographer (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended

Empty: only 2 files match. Misty Foxhunting (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Misty Foxhunting: Where are the two files? -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: In the parent folder: Books of Isaac Newton https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_Isaac_Newton Misty Foxhunting (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@Misty Foxhunting: I would say put them back in this category and keep it. As far as I know, we allow categories with only two things in them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
okay Misty Foxhunting (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Palaeomaps by year

the new subcategories here make little sense, both in the naming scheme with unexpected capitalizations, as well as in the destructive way that the files are all atomized into single-file categories. Furthermore, the maps are NOT cassified by years, but by million years. Enyavar (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:80-cm-Kanone (E)

New cat - split from Category:80 cm K gun (Krupp), but why? Suggest re-merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stock certificates from the United Kingdom

Stock Certificates should be categorised as documents, not as works. Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stock certificates from Austria by year

Stock Certificates should be categorised as documents, not as works. Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stock certificates from France by year

should be categorised as documents, not as works Rathfelder (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Flickr images uploaded by UploadWizard

This category is not needed. Ooligan (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate, Ooligan? Why is the category not needed? Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
@Alavense, This category only has photos dated in the years 2013 to 2015 with a small total of 699 files in it. It appears this category has not been used in years. It should be deleted, because it is not useful. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cap tipping

This category was proposed for moving/merging to "Hat tipping" with the reason "'Hat' and 'cap' are synonymous". Hat and cap are not synonymous, so I bring this here in case there's another reason to merge. If merged, we may also need to merge the Cap/Hat doffing categories.

Pinging Denniscabrams, who made the original move request. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

How are those two terms different in your mind? Denniscabrams (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@Denniscabrams: Caps and hats are different kinds of headgear. The idea of tipping them isn't different, but the name of the headgear is. Maybe there's some combined term we could use. Headgear tipping? Hat and cap tipping? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Assassination by country

Assassinations in country would be the correct plural name Trade (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You usually need a "by" in the name for it to be a metacat. Also, the parent cat is Murder by country: would you change that, too? -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from Estonia by year

Could someone fix the template so it goes into books by country by date? Rathfelder (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:BMW interiors

Duplicate of Category:BMW automobile interiors. Should be merged into that one. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pittosporum alternifolium

This is a non-existant species - none of the main flora authorities recognise it, not even as a synonym, and google has no results for this exact phrase apart from a link to Commons —  Junglenut | talk  23:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

ː ̺ Oppose I am the creator of the category. I uploaded 2 photos of Pittosporum alternifolium taken in a park of the French riviera. Some one replace this category by unidentified pittosporum. ː But as I said on my photos, they had a botanical label showing that they are Pittosporum alternifolim. So dont replace an accurate category by an unidentified one. And keep the cat, please. --Tangopaso (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tangopaso You have missed the point entirely. I have searched for the name Pittosporum alternifolium in PoWO, IPNI, GBIF, WFO, World Plants, CoL, Tropicos, ThePlantList and GRIN - in other words all of the major plant authorities - and not one of them lists that name. I have also searched Google Scholar and it gave me zero results. It is therefore an invalid name, your images should be moved to 'unidentified Pittosporum' and the category we are discussing is not needed. 🌳 Junglenut · Talk 21:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Alan Jones (rugby coach)

Subject is most notable as a talkback host/broadcaster. I'd suggest the category be moved to Category:Alan Jones (talkback host) which would also be consistent with the enwiki article. TarnishedPathtalk 12:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment no problem for me, but wouldn't be better, at this point, Alan Jones (broadcaster)? Categories on en.wiki aren't exactly orthodox. -- Blackcat 13:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
    PS this is Commons, not en.wiki. Categories do not necessarily have to be consistent with en.wiki's. They have to be consistent with logics and facts. Also, outside of Australia - except that the most famous Alan Jones coming from there is the race driver who won the 1980 F.1 world championship - he's known for having coached the Wallabies at the 1987 World Cup. Thus I have no problems to let it be redirected to "broadcaster" but I can assure you that nobody cares.
  •  Support Category:Alan Jones (broadcaster), some in the media refer to him as a former broadcaster. Bidgee (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no issue with a redirect, from the current category to the new target (I don't see why anyone would), and Category:Alan Jones (broadcaster) would also work for me. TarnishedPathtalk 09:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Summarizing: since we seem to agree, in few days I'm going to move Alan Jones (rugby coach) to Alan Jones (broadcaster). Any objection? -- Blackcat 13:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videos of young women of Sweden in 2018

This is way too granular Trade (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for such specific categorization. Alavense (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Images used on MediaWiki websites

By "MediaWiki websites", what this category really means is "the SCP Foundation and Backrooms wikis", not any Wikimedia project, nor any other wiki. The fact that an image is (or was at one point) used on an outside web site is not an inherent property of the image; I've checked, and all of the images in these categories are already adequately categorized elsewhere based on their content. Omphalographer (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The subcats are filled with images out of which the vast majority are never used on the official site. Deleting the category would make it so much harder to find the original source of the images used on SCP / Backrooms Trade (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
If these web sites are failing to attribute these images properly, that is an issue which they should address themselves. Tracking the usage of these files on non-Wikimedia web sites is not a task within the scope of Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
The concept seems parallel to Category:Commons as a media source, though the name is certainly less clear. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
And in this case, many of the files didn't even originate on Commons, e.g. File:Blizzard1 - NOAA.jpg was a NOAA photo, File:Jail Cage in yellow hallway.jpg was imported from Flickr, etc. Omphalographer (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Dragonfly

Unused category YehudaHubert (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Plane

Unused category YehudaHubert (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a category redirect - it should never have any content, nor a parent category. Please read the comments box on the page Category:Plane. PeterWD (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stock certificates from Poland by year

Should be in Category:Documents of Poland by year, not Category:Works in Poland by year Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:LNER Class A4 4488 Union of South Africa (all files)

Similar categories for both the Flying Scotsman and Pendennis Castle locomotives were deleted, so this should be too. TwinBoo (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Stock certificates from the United States by year

should be categorised as documents, not as works Rathfelder (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)