These categories should be consistent. --Sahaib (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they should be. When I originally created this category (and numerous others following the same naming convention), the intent was for the categories to host flags that were specifically national flags. Each category would be a subcategory of a respective (and more generic) flags category for that country.
However, some of the categories I created were renamed from Photographs of national flags in X to Photographs of flags in X, while still containing files representing national flags in X. Others were emptied, subsequently deleted (for example, the previously linked Category:Photographs of flags of Canada by country), and the files moved to a category with the more generic name. Some of this was done by SpinnerLaserz (or subsequent account SpinnerLaserzthe2nd), but that user has stopped categorizing flags (see message at User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd); I had also left a message for that user regarding these changes. I'm sure that user meant well, but it has resulted in these inconsistencies.
In my opinion, we should have a structure such as:
contains provincial, territorial, municipal, regional, ceremonial, royal, vice-regal, administrative, military, civil, institutional (corporate, educational, etc.), ethnic, or other flags of Canada photographed in the United Kingdom.
This was the original structure I intended with these categories. Mindmatrix 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
No objections of that proposition, both variants look about the same. Current version is shorter and thus probably more convenient, but do it as usual. — Olgerts V (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Ist das wirklich sinnvoll? Für mich umfasst das auch so alle Alleen, Gassen und Ähnliche, nur unter weniger kompliziertem Namen? -- Kürschner (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Vermute, die neue Kategorie soll heißen Roads and streets named after Cologne.
Kann man so machen, muss man nicht. Was für eine Änderung spricht, ist die geringe Zahl von Städten, die sich auf Streets beschränken. Bei einem schnellen Überblick habe ich für Deutschland nur Bonn gefunden. Gruß Im Fokus (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
In fact the parent “Category:Roads and streets named after cities“ is not named correctly, as it has united a parent (roads) and a child (streets) categories. So it (and its subcategories) should be moved to “Category:Roads named after cities” and “Category:Streets named after cities” should be created accordingly. --Elkost (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:Numbers on discs and Category:Number in circle and Category:Numbers in circles seem to be disparate efforts to achieve the same goal. Regardless of the matter of what exactly is a circle v.a.v. a disc, these categories should be categorized and populated with awareness of this triplication, and it should be fixed: Either by splitting the subject or by merging (if these two words are deemed to be synonyms for our purposes). -- Tuválkin✉✇ 23:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Also related to this matter, duplicated pairs such as:
Unless, as Tuvalkin said, there is an explicit distinction intended between "disc" and "circle", which AFAICT doesn't seem to be the case. --Waldyrious (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This should be specified as "Wikimedia Beta Features" (in line with the parent Category:Wikimedia Beta Features), but I suppose "Icons of Wikimedia Beta Features" would be more grammatical. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment this category was the result of my move of Category:Airport Road to Category:Airport Road (Parañaque), after more images that do not show the Airport Road in the Philippines (yes, a road near Manila is named as such) became more frequent. I moved thise showing the Airport Road near Manila to that renamed category, and I randomly removed the redirect by adding Category:Roads. I will leave the decision to other users, as I only focus on roads here in the Philippines. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I imagine there are many roads named "Airport Road", and this category should be a dab for any of these we have files of. Josh (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
All images are from one uploader, not realistically useful Dronebogus (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
If the images are out of scope they should be deleted. Until then, the category is valid. That said, the name is way off. Josh (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep Then maybe we should. 1932 is a significant date in the registration of UK road vehicles, and it's useful to us for our purposes because it's also identifiable post facto. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is should this category name (as well as some of its sibling categories) be in French? Category names are supposed to be in English unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If you see parent category's subcategories, then there is a mess. Used parenthetical qualifier are "(cépage)", "(vitigno)", "(grape variety)" Estopedist1 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
[1]: Busts → Busts by location → Busts in North America → Busts in the United States → Busts in the United States by city → Busts in New York City → Hall of Fame for Great Americans → Hall of Fame for Great Americans inductees → Luther Burbank → Solanum tuberosum 'Russet Burbank'
unique country category. Is it same as category:Bethel churches? If not, then the category in question to be upmerged as "no potential to grow" Estopedist1 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, merging to Bethel churches is fine with me. Niera (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I see this as a subcategory of "fire-damaged churches". "Burning" implies that the picture represents the state of currently burning, not just already burned ruins. Niera (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Should individual countries be directly categorised into this category (or its subcategories) or the particular categories covering colonial times? The current category and its subcategories are a mess of both, particularly Former colonies of the United Kingdom. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
This might only be slightly related, but the whole "former countries" category scheme is fundamental scheme is massively screwed up. For instance, it contains categories for a lot of former European monarchical states, which weren't really countries in any way that mattered or anyone cares about. There's also some former Medieval states in there, a couple of "empires", and even a few Roman territories. At that point the category and really the term "country" itself is essentially so general it's useless. Anyway, the reason I bring it up is 1. Because I'd like "former countries" to either be better defined or the category gotten rid of 2. I think your issue with former colonies is more about the general problem with these types of categories then it is specific to this category. So I think the whole structure needs changing. Don't ask me how, but I've made one suggestion at least. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Each of the subcategories here has a parent category of 27 December XXXX. How do can we better acknowledge that some Christian churches celebrate in January? -- Themightyquill (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I don't know of any churches that celebrate Christmas in January, there are just churches that use a different calendar. This is actually a systemic problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hm. This brings up a really tricky subject. We can just use two categories: both December 25 [year] and January 7 [subsequent year], but some churches hold it on January 6 and January 19, evidently.:/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
What is the point of merging steles and stones in one category? It seems that having separate "Named steles" and "Named stones" would be better. And would avoid placing named stones in Catgory:Steles ("Steles → Named steles or stones → Devil's stones → Devil's stones in Poland" for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pl-pomerania-lake-Kamienne.jpg ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
What's the purpose of this category? -- Themightyquill (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Studio jewellery is an international term for artistically designed jewellery in distinction to conventionally designed jewellery Detlef thomas (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Detlef thomas: What does artistic vs conventional mean in this context? i.e. Isn't all jewellery artistic? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Craft oriented vs. art oriented Detlef thomas (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that there could be a clear distinction between the two. At least not a distinction that is a suitable base for the categorization of pictures at Commons. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. This distinction might work for an article, but how could one look at an image of a particular piece and decide which category it belongs in? -- Themightyquill (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
they might be able to, given enough expertise Detlef thomas (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"stained glass windows" or "stained-glass windows"? Is the hyphen-free phrase grammatically incorrect? Estopedist1 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
When used as an adjective, as it is here, there should be a hyphen. For example, you would write, "The window is made of stained glass," but "That is a stained-glass window." --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
unique country category. To be deleted Estopedist1 (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, upmerge everything to Category:Religion in Belgium, except maybe the atheism category: do we categorize atheism under religion? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
No rationale reasons for creating these categories for "flat list" of streets from difference settlements. See also similar request. My proposal: Delete this category. Kaganer (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --A.Savin 21:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
No rationale reasons for creating these categories for "flat list" of streets from difference settlements. See also similar request. My proposal: Delete these both categories. Kaganer (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --A.Savin 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
City of Moscow not only federal subject, but also (and primary) megapolis, a largest city in Russia. And this property is crucial for the categorization of streets (as parts of a connected street infrastructure). --Kaganer (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In your opinion, what categories should Lesnaya Street of Malaya Dubna village in Moscow Oblast be included in? I mean why Moscow with streets in its cities, towns, villages can have flat list category and Moscow Oblast with streets in its cities, towns, villages cannot?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but NOT these same structure. «Flat list» of streets is created for cities/towns, not for regions. New Moscow (or Greater Moscow) is a problematic modern expansion of Moscow. I do not have a firm opinion whether the street network of settlements in this area should be included in the general «flat list» category of Moscow. Maybe not. At least - until the full integration of these territories.But in any case, this should not be done for the Moscow Oblast and other regions. No one rationale arguments for this. --Kaganer (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
(Russian) Category:Streets in Moscow Oblast by name — по большому счёту категория, не имеющая общности. Тут принципиальный момент в отличие от Москвы — Москва это не только субъект, но и город, поэтому где бы улица не находилась — в районе Братеево, в городе Московский, в районе Хамовники, в районе Бабушкинский или в Пресненском районе — это всё улицы Москвы, компактного города-мегаполиса. Т.е. это логичная категория. Такую логику по субъектам РФ можно применить только разве что к Петербургу, и быть может, Севастополю (хотя сейчас статус последнего неясный). Поэтому категория по московским улицам Category:Streets in Moscow by name возможна, но не является обязательной, все улицы могут лечь и в Category:Streets in Moscow, как было ранее. Category:Streets in Moscow Oblast by name да и Category:Streets in Moscow Oblast by name (flat list) — в такой категории содержатся улицы типа Category:Komsomolskaya Street (Podolsk), Category:Gagarina Street (Reutov) и Category:Ostrovskogo Street, Kolomna — то есть объекты, географически вообще мало связанные (в данном случае — Подольска, Реутова и Коломны). Так что склоняюсь к тому, чтобы удалить — Delete. По поводу аргумента, что, мол, есть же похожие категории — Category:Streets in Krasnoyarsk Krai by name — тут ещё более большой географически регион и более бессмысленная категория (зачем категория, которая включает в себя улицы Норильска, Красноярска, Канска и Минусинка — для меня большая загадка). Если какой-то человек будет искать улицы, то он будет искать сугубо по населённому пункту, где бы он не находился. Т.е. по условной категории Category:Streets in Krasnoyarsk, если ему нужен будет Красноярск, либо же по названию улицы, если он знает, - он просто тогда наберёт «Category:X Street» и всё. --Brateevsky{talk} 10:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Стейтмент по существу будет, или мне вас таки сразу заблочить за массовые неконсенсусные правки и злоупотребление Cat-a-lot'ом? --A.Savin 12:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
You created Category:Streets in Tambov Oblast in 2019 but now you agree with Paul that there are no rationale reasons for creating such categories including "flat lists" because such categories are grouping streets from different settlements within oblast. Why did you create Category:Streets in Tambov Oblast then?--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This was a category requiring permanent diffusion by city, and never ever a flatlist. Once again: any statement on what you did, not me? --A.Savin 18:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
For convenience, allstreets in Moscow Oblast should be included in this category. This includes all streets that can also be found in the subcategories.
Thus, Kaganer's argument, that there are allegedly "no rationale reasons for creating these categories for "flat list" of streets from difference settlements", is refuted by {{All included}} inclusions.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Please don't use analogies. Canyons are not so similar to streets as to cite them as an example. Let's try to stay on the topic of the streets. --Kaganer (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Also the presence in the project of a similar template and the technical possibility of using it does not give this an strength of an argument. --Kaganer (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You means breads? 191.126.188.85 23:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Jilotepec es un pueblo en el estado de Veracruz en México (lo encuentran como Municipio de Jilotepec (Veracruz)) , tiene pan parecido a sus vecinos de banderilla, Xalapa o Coacoatzintla o Naolinco, pero todos tienen ligeras diferencia. asi es estoy poniendo una categoría por el pan de cada municipio en el que voy comprando pan y documentandolo. La cuestión es a quien perjudica que tenga pequeñas categorías de pan en Veracruz? Claro que podría poner todas las fotos en la categoría de Bread of Veracruz, pero se han dado cuenta lo enorme que es el estado de Veracruz? que sentido tendría para alguien que quiera ver las diferencias de pan en el estado que le pusiera solo una categoría en lugar de poner categoría por el pan de cada municipio o población? es mejor de una vez poner categorías más pequeñas. Koffermejia (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
En cuanto al pliural. En español la categoría se llamaba pan de Jilotepec, no se requería decir panes para que se entendiera que se hablaba de más de un pan, no se si en inglés haga falta tal cosa. Koffermejia (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Otras similares no usan "variety". 191.126.188.85 01:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Jurançon is not only an AOP wine, but also the name of a variety of grape. We have to keep this category. Marianne Casamance (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Support perhaps the WP article needs moving as well but categories are in the plural so confusion is more likely with categories than articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Category has no use, “fresh” is an abstract term that can’t be visualized except in relation to concrete things Dronebogus (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep, good point, but other cats in parent seem similarly abstract, although I'm not sure foodies or artists would agree that "fresh" can't be visualized. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It can be visualized as something fresh. Freshness is an abstract concept. Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I guess someone could paint or draw an LGBT pride flag in a particular location and that would be by country of location, but not under photographs. Josh (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Не обязательно, по аналогии с другими категориями. Если в переименовании категории района Category:Lyublino -> Category:Lyublino District есть какая-то логика: топоним "Люблино" является широко распространённым в России, в отличие от например, топонима Братеево (и соответственно категории Category:Brateyevo), то по категории улиц района переименование не требуется. По аналогии с другими категориями Category:Streets in Moscow by municipal division, Category:Transport in Lyublino и другими. Английская Википедия в этом плане не авторитет. Здесь префикс "District" явно лишний, присобачивать его не нужно. Brateevsky{talk} 11:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Brateevsky: If you feel that Lyublino District should be renamed Lyublino, please propose this as a CfD on that category. If a change is made, all child categories will change to match. Josh (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we really need to distinguish "soldiers throwing grenades" from "[anyone else] throwing grenades"? Especially since, by the category's own admission, any apparent intention to distinguish military grenade throwing from non-military grenade throwing is defeated by restricting the category to personnel meeting the formal defintion of "soldier"? Dvaderv2 (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
No, but the fix for that is to delete "people throwing grenades" as an empty category. If it's by some chance not empty, then we can reconsider this.
There is also a good argument that "people throwing grenades" should appear as a sub- category of soldiers throwing them (probably renamed as "civilians throwing grenades". Grenades are a military device, they are thrown by soldiers. To have them thrown by non-soldiers is the exceptional case to this, which should thus be the narrow special case (and subcategory) of the main category. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
It may also be worth clarifying that "soldiers" here includes marines, grenadiers, carabinieri or any other armed forces combatant handling grenades. The US Marines in particular make a point of distinguishing themselves from GIs, but that's totally irrelevant for our purposes here. If we were to start caring, we'd begin with splitting by country, and then handling branch of service properly. There is no benefit to us whatsoever in excluding marines from soldiers in general, only to then lump them in with civilians as "people"! (And while it's clear that US Marines distinguish themselves from soldiers, it has never been shown that they're "people" either.) Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The top of the category page clearly says "Please note that sailors and marines, as well as airmen and certain other military personnel are not soldiers", which rather obviously restricts the category to depictions of formally defined soldiers. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this when opening the discussion.
Also, how would deleting the "people throwing grenades" category be a fix? Surely the proper fix would be to deprecate this category and move everything to the "people throwing grenades" category? As for "civilians throwing grenades", I've seen more than enough pics of people running around with commercial smoke grenades (when I was looking for pics of people running around with military grenades, but I digress) to know that grenades aren't the exclusive preserve of the military (though obviously it's rather unlikely for a civilian to be walking around with a frag grenade!). There's also the issue of militias, insurgent groups, and other bodies that are completely unofficial (and so cannot really be counted as military personnel) but nevertheless equip and organise themselves along military lines. Lastly, what about law enforcement organisations, officially recognised paramilitaries, and the like? They're obviously non-military but at the same time are official bodies under the control of their originating nation state and so can't be likened to civilians.
P.S. - Your comment about "splitting by country, and then handling branch of service properly" reminds me that we have a category for "People with HK G36" and then a separate category for "Bundeswehrsoldaten mit G36". It gets even more ridiculous with the G3 - "People with HK G3", "Bundeswehrsoldaten mit G3", "U.S. military personnel with HK G3", and then a separate "People with HK G3A3" category with further categories for the Norwegian ("People with AG-3") and Swedish ("People with Ak 4") variants. Dvaderv2 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If anyone wants to set up "US Marines ..." as a sub-cat, then go for it. Likewise "Carabinieri of Grand Fenwick" if there's enough to get past SMALLCAT. But "marines" in general would be too broad (it would just become another empty container and layer of indirection). We have (AFAIK) 1 sailor here with a grenade. We don't have any civilians here and if we do, then we can do something relevant there. But as it is, we shouldn't build empty cats for content we're unlikely to get.
The description can be changed. We're after what's the best solution, not just one that an editor wrote down in the past. That's what CfD is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Prime Minister Boris Johnson throws a training grenade:) RZuo (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
by the way, Category:Soldiers is defined as just members of armed forces. any country's narrower definition of the word soldier is not the primary consideration of commons cat tree. RZuo (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Zelenymuzik: No. For neo-latin speaking people (italian, french, spanish) "Sportspeople by country in 1872" is "Sportspeople by country by year". For english speaking people it's "Sportspeople by year by country" (reverted form). Now Commons is an international project and his official language is english. So we have to apply the english form. About 10 years ago we were forced for the italian categories to change all the categories names to the english form. Can somebody that speaks english confirm that? Thank you. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@DenghiùComm: Yes, categories should be named in English as a general rule, per COM:CAT. However, since English is such a poorly structured language with exceptions and caveats throughout--not to mention the whole US-UK divide, how exactly to implement that is often a matter of debate. Josh (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Zelenymuzik: They do not appear to be reversed here. The contents of this index are in the form "year in sports by country", where year is the indexed criteria and 'sports by country' is the topic. Since an index name should be in "topic by criteria" format, Sports by country by year is the correct category name for an index of 'sports by country' indexed by 'year'. For example, the see the difference in contents we should see in reversed versions of this category:
@Joshbaumgartner and DenghiùComm: Linked categories on wikipedia and commons should have the same content, which they don't. I don't stick to the name. That's where I see the problem. Zelenymuzik (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Zelenymuzik: Got it. In that case, probably best to change the link to the category that is actually the best match instead of what might have been thought to be a correct match just based on the name. Since links can be changed at any time, I certainly do not think the right answer is to change our content to match a link, but instead change the link. Josh (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Zelenymuzik: That looks right to me now. It appears our "by X by Y" format is an analog to Wikipedia's "by Y and X" format. Anyway, looks good now. Josh (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
On hold pending resolution of the discussion on this matter going on at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Streets named after Kyiv. Josh (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment this category was the result of my move of Category:Airport Road to Category:Airport Road (Parañaque), after more images that do not show the Airport Road in the Philippines (yes, a road near Manila is named as such) became more frequent. I moved thise showing the Airport Road near Manila to that renamed category, and I randomly removed the redirect by adding Category:Roads. I will leave the decision to other users, as I only focus on roads here in the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep Then maybe we should. 1932 is a significant date in the registration of UK road vehicles, and it's useful to us for our purposes because it's also identifiable post facto. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete No, these are just arbitrary groupings of years that add an unnecessary extra layer between Category:Buses in the United Kingdom by year of registration and Category:1904 registered buses in the United Kingdom. Josh (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Support perhaps the WP article needs moving as well but categories are in the plural so confusion is more likely with categories than articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Rename Category:Streets in Lyublino to Category:Streets in Lyublino District to match parent Lyublino District in compliance with the Universality Principle. Josh (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
