Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/01

Category:Sports automobiles

Turning a move request by Andy Dingley into a CfD here, because I don't want a wheel war. I agree entirely with Andy's request that this be move back to "sports cars", which as far as I know is the common term for this in literally every English-speaking country. Google gives 66,500,000 hits for "sports car" vs. 346,000 for "sports automobile", a factor of nearly 200. Since this has twice been moved to what Andy and I both clearly consider the wrong name, I want an explicit decision here, rather than a continued fight. Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Strong oppose as long as the rule of {{Automobile}} is applicable throughout Commons, and Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Automobiles shows that many users still prefer status quo and even reject common alternatives like "motor cars", which is more unambiguous than simply "cars". Although the term "cars" nowadays unambiguously refer to automobiles, many users worry about the historical usage of the term for other land vehicles, especially as we host tons of historical images. Not only that, the existence of categories like Category:Sleeping cars (rail transport) proves that the term "cars" is not a reliable category name, and they often get moved to more unambiguous names (the aforesaid category is later unilaterally renamed to Category:Sleeping trains by Prototyperspective for being "incorrect", and that controversial renaming is under a separate discussion). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"Sleeping trains" should be moved back to "sleeping cars" for exactly the same reason this should be moved back to "sports cars": in both cases, this is simply what the thing is called. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Automobile}} allows for compound words; surely it should allow for compound phrases. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"Sports car" is technically a compound word - it's an open compound, just like "ice cream" or "high school". And it's no more sensible to replace "sports car" with "sports automobile" than it would be to replace "high school" with "high university" (for example). Omphalographer (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Omphalographer: The "compound words" clause in {{Automobile}} js added by me to take account of unavoidable terms like Category:Microcars. Otherwise, there's no consensus regarding compound words. I personally like to use "cars" throughout Commons as long as it refers to automobiles. However, I have to compromise with the current consensus that eschews that term in favour of "automobiles". So, you have categories like Category:Autonomous automobiles, Category:Electric automobiles or Category:Flying automobiles, but not "self-driving cars", "electric cars" or "flying cars". The latter are significantly more common than the former, but the current consensus doesn't allow them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like those either, but in none of those cases are we dealing with a term anywhere near as common as "sports car". - Jmabel ! talk 04:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Slavic gords

Redundant with Category:Gords, because a gord is by definition an "ancient Slavic" settlement. Should be upmerged into that category and/or diffused into its subcats under Category:Gords by country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sławobóg :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Ops, red this first as 'gods'. But hey, pinged user probably knows more about this then me anyway... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe that is because in Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian gord (in it's local forms) is still in use and means "city/town"? Also word "ancient" is used in some popular way, all secure gords are (early) medieval, ancient gords would be from Proto-Slavic times, before Slavs came to Central Europe. I'm not sure what to do with this. Sławobóg (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the present-day meaning of "gord" in Slavic languages should have anything to do with the definition of this category. All of these categories should of course only be about "gords" in the proper archaeological sense, i.e. the specifically early Slavic settlement type (with earthen/wooden ring walls and so on). I can't see any meaningful temporal cut-off point between "ancient" and other gords, nor does the main "gord" category currently support a temporal sub-division as in Category:Gords by period, for which "ancient Gords" could be a meaningful subcat. The banned POV-pusher who initially created and populated this cat seems to have used it for putting all sorts of entries in regardless of period, including fake entries about settlements from entirely different cultures (Celtic oppidum, neolithic settlements and whatnot). Best to just get rid of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought it could be the reason someone named this way, but now I see it was made by Kriestovo Nysian, a guy spreading Slavic pseudoscience I fought with before. I don't see any problems with changing/merging it to Category:Gords. Having Category:Gords by period/century would be good idea too. Sławobóg (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Decades by district

Hundreds of empty categories. Only content is a few entries for ancient history in Baden- Wuttemberg Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Grossly underutilized - there's a sum total of two files in this entire category hierarchy, both of which are covered adequately by other category systems - and it's unclear how "district" is meant to be interpreted in a global context. Omphalographer (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete For all of the categories, including the few that have images since they aren't full enough to justify the categories to begin with. There's no point in having hundreds of empty categories just because a few of them have one or two images though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The idea of "district" does not work on a global basis. Rathfelder (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
 Neutral The categories had thousands of entries. But an IP destroyed some templates on 30 september 2024. For example here removed the "YYYYs by district" in country-templates. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Later here the IP corrected it. But now "Districts in the YYYYs" instead of "YYYYs by district" before. So the Main-Category was empty after destructive changes. -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Triplec85: I hope I didn't make things worse by deleting all the empty ones. (For reference, the deletes were done on 3 January between 1:19 and 1:28 UTC.) If so, and they need to be restored, let me know how I can help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: No. All fine. You didn't make a mistake. I'm neutral here. It now looks stupid when the category is empty. But I explained that an IP with template changes destroyed everything. Greets -- Triple C 85 | User talk | 22:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
 Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gothic jewellery

This category needs disambiguation and a split – about half of its current contents are related to medieval en:Gothic art, the other half are related to the art of the ancient en:Goths, two entirely different topics. I cannot figure out which of the two meanings was initially intended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified armies

This is just a bad name. Army refers to a major group of soldiers, usually hundreds if not thousands. What we have here are photos of one or maybe several soldiers. Delete and upmerge Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Unidentified military people -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge - Per Auntof6 -- Deadstar (msg) 12:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified military

This does not sound good in English. I suggest renaming to Category:Unidentified topics related to military Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Some larger rethinking of the Category:Unidentified by topic hierarchy might be in order. My opinion is that there are far too many "unidentified" categories, often for bizarrely abstract topics like Category:Unidentified society or Category:Unidentified theoretical philosophy. The focus of these categories should be to have a couple of clearly distinguished "buckets" where users can place files of unclear significance - they should not aim to create an entire parallel ontology. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer True. The two examples you listed are pretty bizarre, as are some of the subcats in the society one. Some are pretty pointless. What is the difference between Category:Unidentified social history and Category:Social history? None. This is probably true for quite a few similar generic category, probably including the very one I nominated. But that's probably off topic here - but ping me if another discussion is started. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buildings in Spain by city by autonomous community

This category, as well as the ones which fall under it, are not about 'cities', but about 'municipalities'. In many cases, there's no city in the whole of the municipality, only small populated places within it. There are many similar categories, such as 'Religious buildings in Spain by city' or 'Churches in Spain by city'. Alavense (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Up merging or otherwise removing the subcat and deleting the ones "by city." Assuming they are empty afterwards of course. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Arco de' Banchi

Street sign

I think this category should be renamed, please, to Category:Arco dei Banchi as shown on the street sign, in Wikidata and in the Swedish article. NearEMPTiness (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In fact, Arco dei Banchi seems to be the most common name. However, Arco de' Banchi is also used, as can be seen here. Pinging Lalupa as the user who created the category back in 2014 to have their comments as well. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Talk

What is the meaning of this category, how does it differ from more clearly defined categories like Category:Discussions, Category:Talking, Category:Speech or Category:People in conversation ? Miikul (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Miikul: I think these "clearly-defined" categories need some cleanup. Category:People in conversation should be restricted to actual images of people in conversation, with concept categories going to Category:Conversation. Category:Talking should not under Category:Conversation, since Category:Speech is also an instance of talking and it is not generally considered conversation (one-off speeches are not conversations). Category:Talk is really redundant to Category:Talking unless we have media specifically about instances of talking, as distinct from the behavior. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Logos of universities in the United States

Should be merged with Category:Logos of higher education institutions in the United States as that category covers both universities and colleges. Discussion also taking place at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Logos of colleges in the United States. Astros4477 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically it should be Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States. Apparently Category:Logos of universities and colleges by country was redirected to Category:Logos of higher education institutions by country at some point even though the sub-categories still follow "universities and colleges." I don't really care which one the category is renamed to, but it should be uniform and at least in the United States colleges are usually different then universities. So I'm not personally a fan of combing them in the same category. You could also argue "higher education" is rather ambagious. Although again, I don't really care either way. The whole is ultimately rather pedantic and meaningless, as are of these types of things on here. @Joshbaumgartner: for their opinion since their the one who redirected Category:Logos of universities and colleges by country to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


  •  Keep Aside from my first comment, Category:Logos of universities is a thing and there's plenty of sub-cats that I had nothing to do with. So I don't really see what the issue here is or why this particular category should be upmerged but not the others. Probably Category:Logos of universities should be discussed, but there's no reason to merge this category when other ones for "logos of univerisites" exist. It's not really clear to me how exactly it covers both universities and colleges either. To the degree that there's any overlap, that can just be dealt with moving the images that shouldn't be in the category into a more appropriate one. From what I can tell none of the logos in the category are for colleges to begin with though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
     Keep "Universities and colleges" has been changed to "higher education institutions" per previous CfDs. "Universities" is a valid sub-category of this, so this category is okay, if the contents are really all specifically universities. Since Category:Logos of colleges in the United States exists, there is some hope the logos are accurately segregated correctly, but even if not, the answer is to accurately sort them. If a logo is unknown whether it is for a college or a uni, it can go in the parent Category:Logos of higher education institutions in the United States until they can be accurately diffused. Josh (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
 Keep per Adamant1 and Josh. I'm the one who renamed Category:Logos of universities and colleges in the United States to use "higher education institutions", which can include HEIs other than colleges and universities.

You could also argue "higher education" is rather ambagious. (sic)

@Adamant1: There's nothing ambiguous with "higher education" by the way, as the division between higher education and the lower levels of education (so-called "school education") is widely followed across the world. There are some undergraduate colleges in India and Bangladesh that also provide high school education, but they are explicitly named as "School and College", and they adhere to different authorities regarding high school education and higher education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: I could be wrong, but I think some countries consider 2 and 4 year colleges to qualifies as "higher education." Whereas others only use the term to describe 6 year universities and the like. Kind of like "graduate school." Sometimes it can mean a four year college but other times it refers to 6 year universities and similar graduate schools beyond a bachelors degree. I don't think it matters so much in this case though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, we don't need to define "higher education" here. Let's wait for other users for input. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:İbrahim ÖZASLAN pictures wrongly categorised

Random collection of little value, found in a wrong category Dosseman (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I found this set in a category about Basalt Rocks (that I found of little value myself) when editing pictures of the town of Boyabat. After some study of what might have happened, I think a one-time user uploaded them, not knowing what he was doing. I put them in a sub-category just to get them away from a wrong spot, but am of the opinion that none of the pictures is new in any way or of artistic value. Also, some of the descriptions are wrong (a minaret is called "kilise", church). I think deleting the whole would end a fruitless experiment by a user who would do everything wrong. I did notify him on his talk page about the existence of this ad hoc category.Dosseman (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Round Six special appearances

The title is not entirely right (the international title is Squid Game, Round Six applies only for Brazil and Canada). Also the two actor pages linked are not special appearances but regular cast Despechi.ro (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. There's a deeper problem here - Commons categories should not be used to represent non-hierarchical relationships like cast lists. Category:Squid Game cast members and Category:Squid Game supporting cast should not exist. Omphalographer (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Syzygium fratris - botanical illustrations

There are no images that fit this category, either on Commons or outside it —  Junglenut | talk  23:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging MILEPRI, as they created the category. Do you have files to populate the category? Otherwise, it can be deleted as empty. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed.
Consensusdelete
ActionsDelete category. Can be recreated if there are files in the future.
Participants
Closed byAuntof6 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
    • OK. It is a mistake to confuse the x-ray of the leaf as an illustration. Thanks for the correction.--MILEPRI (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cast members

Relisting this discussion, as the previous one has gone stale. I'd like to have this and every other "[Movie/TV series] cast" category deleted, as these subcategories don't exist to sort or diffuse media relevant to these movies or tv series. It also creates an enormous amount of category bloat for actors who have been in the profession for a long time, and have performed in dozens of movies and tv series. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support These types of categories could theoretically work if they we're confined to clearly notable lead actors and images of them that directly relate to the movie. Like say Category:Top Gun cast members containing a sub-category for images of Tom Cruise at a Top Gun premier. The problem is that it never works out that way. Instead you end up with stuff like Category:The Secret Life of Pets cast where the movie is a cartoon to begin with and the category contains a bunch of random subcategories for non-notable actors without any images of the movie to begin with. At that point it's just meaningless trivia that is better stored on Wikidata and accessed through infoboxes. There's already categories for images of actors at movies premiers and the like anyway. So these categories are redundant at best, if not totally meaningless at worst. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. As I have said many times, Commons is not Wikidata, nor is it IMdb. This type of information is best represented in Wikidata - when included properly, it will show up in {{Wikidata Infobox}}, as it does in e.g. Category:Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope. Replicating this data in categories is an exceptionally poor use of editor time, especially as not all films or actors have Commons categories. (Adding category links for the actors in the infobox, or reverse search links for "what films has this actor appeared in", could be desirable enhancements for the template, but that's a separate matter.)
There are a small number of images on Commons which really, truly depict the cast of a production, like File:Cast members of Game of Thrones (Comic-Con 2012).jpg. However, in most cases, there really aren't enough of those images to merit specific categories, and there's certainly no need to create an overarching category to encompass all such photos of any show's cast.
Omphalographer (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
As an additional matter, I think we also need to address related categories, such as:
-- and probably a few more I've forgotten about. We've ended up with a lot of overlapping categories all trying to represent the same "X played the role of Y in Z" relationship from different angles, or using slightly different terminology. If we're going to represent it at all (which I don't think we should), we need consensus on how that should be done. Omphalographer (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Having both these types of categories (Actors by movie, Movies by actor) creates a circular category structure as well, which is against Commons guidelines. So we should only have one at most, though I agree we should have neither. All these categories say/do roughly the same thing, and they all have the same problem as the one I mentioned upthread in that they don't contain or diffuse media relevant to these productions. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd support getting rid of all of the categories that are similar to Category:Cast members. None of them really serve any meaningful purpose that can't be done better through wikidata and infoboxes. Especially in the case of Category:People associated with fictional characters since the term "associated with" is totally meaningless and categories based on "association" are meant to be for a type of organization, not subjects that are tangentially related to each other. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Greek Orthodox churches in the United States by state

Rename to Category Church buildings of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America by state. It is a duplicate of Category:Churches of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in many cases. Except where the state is unknown. I'm not aware of any Greek Orthodox church buildings in the USA that are not part of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Other churches are other flavours of Eastern Orthodox. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment I am not very skilled on this topic, thus I'll rely on what more educated users have to say about that. -- Blackcat 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
 Support renaming to Category:Churches of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America by state per nom. We normally call the buildings "churches", not "church buildings" unless you're specifically talking about different church buildings within the same church compound. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that I would prefer "Church buildings". In the USA, the word "church" can mean an institution or a bricks-and-mortar building. In some small towns, the two can often mean the same thing - the building is itself the entire denomination. When it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, "church" gets even trickier. Is it a rite (e.g. Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac?). Is it a language (e.g. Greek is used in the liturgy in countries that don't even speak Greek). Is it a nationality (e.g. Ukrainian Greek Orthodox)? Is it a patriarchate (e.g Ecumenical Patriarchate, Antiochian Patriarchate)? So to avoid all these doubts, I think that the word "building" is both useful and necessary. But if I can't get support on the proposal as formulated, I'll accept your amendment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: in Italian too we have the same ambiguity: the term chiesa (church) can identify both the institution (la Chiesa cattolica = the Catholic church) or a building where the Catholic cult is practiced (though in this latter case we use to say una chiesa cattolica = a Catholic church, not la Chiesa cattolica = the Catholic church, which is the institution). The only difference might be that when the term church is used as institution, it's capitalised, whereas it's not when it's used to indicate the building. -- Blackcat 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:České odrůdy brambor - Slunečnice topinambur

This category has a Czech name. An English name might be appropriate. Ies (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's completely nonsense. The name means "Czech varieties of potato – topinambur sunflower", Helianthus tuberosus isn't biologically a potato. The category should be deleted and the content properly categorized to Helianthus tuberosus subcats. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Indian military personnel killed in action

Are their categories in Commons with similar name, considering there are a lot of military people from different countries killed in action? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well there are e.g. these:
That being said, yes, it would be nice to have the categories organized more neatly. For example, Category:Military people killed in action by country does not include the Indian category or the Polish category. Joker Island (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pages by page numbers

This is not a useful property to categorize on. Pages of documents should be categorized with other pages from the same document, not with pages from unrelated documents which happen to have the same number on them. Omphalographer (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And they are already categorized with other pages from the same document. The same way a house will be categorized with the other houses in the same street but will then also be categorized with those houses which share the same number. I don't see a problem here. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
What purpose does that serve? Under what circumstances would someone want to find a page numbered 123 (for example), but not care what it was from? Commons categories exist to make media discoverable through those categories. We don't create categories for their own sake, or just to attach metadata to files.
(I don't think Category:House number signs by number is terribly useful either, for what it's worth, but that's a separate discussion.) Omphalographer (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I only meant that I don't think the fact that something can be (and actually is) categorized under another system is an argument per se for the deletion. But I do think you are right that it's not very useful to categorize pages together just because they happen to have the same number. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Visitors

What's the distinction between Category:Travellers, Category:Visitors, and Category:Tourists? Also, if they are distinct, the category Category:Visitor attractions shouldn't be used for "tourist attractions". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I know, there's a distinction between a "traveller" (one who travels) and a "tourist" (one who travels for pleasure). But what about a "visitor"? We do have Category:Visits, but I'm not sure how it is distinct from travelling or touring. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Most of the subcategories here, like Category:Visitors in Venice, feel like they're actually about tourists. Some, like Category:Museum visitors or Category:Escalators with people, are just about people in locations. And some, like Category:Pilgrims, Category:Exhibitors, or Category:Visitor parking only signs, are about tangentially related subjects which belong elsewhere.
I'm unsure that some of these photos need to be classified as "visitors" (or "tourists" or what-have-you) at all. Photos of people in places which often have many people in them - like malls or supermarkets or airports - are simply photos of those places. There's no need to specify that the people are "visitors" - even if the photo focuses on the people, categorizing it as "people at/in PLACE" is sufficient. Omphalographer (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
This is why I think "visitors" categories are redundant to other established categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Museum buildings

What the heck is this category doing? For almost all museums, the buildings come under the main Category:Museums category rather than this subcat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:School buildings

What the heck is this category doing? For almost all schools, the buildings come under the main Category:Schools category rather than this subcat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess that the idea is that ideally, for School of XYZ:
  • a photo of the building would be in "School of XYZ building" category
    • which would be in the "School buildings" category
    • and also in the "School of XYZ" category
  • the "School of XYZ" category would also have other pictures, like events, famous alumni, famous professors...
    • and it will be in the "Schools" catehory
The thing is that the school is an institution, and that's why the "Schools" category is in these categories:
  • Educational institutions by type
  • Child-related places
  • School education
While the ""School buildings" category is in these categories:
  • School architecture
  • Education buildings
  • Workplaces
Deleting the "School buildings" category (and its subcategories) and moving everything to the "Schools" category (and its subcategories) would mean that photos of school buildings will not be in "Buildings" or "Buildings by function" categories. Joker Island (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Higher education buildings

What the heck is this category doing? For almost all higher education institutions, the buildings come under the main Category:Higher education institutions category rather than this subcat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I don't follow that. A building is not an institution, and should generally have some parent category leading back to Category:Buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Why not directly categorizing the institution categories under buildings? The definitions of "institution" I have provided in a later CFD say that it refers to an orgnaization as well as the building where it is housed. Of course, we cannot do the same thing with banks, as they are spread with a lot of branches. The same thing may not be true for educational institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: Because, for example, Category:École polytechnique is going to be a (sub-)subcategory of Category:Higher education institutions but we need a place for Category:Buildings in École polytechnique. Universities are much more than buildings - they own and manage research forests and farms, research vessels, transportation, and things without even a physical presence like Category:SETI@home. Plus we need a place to put things like Category:University and college bookshops, Category:University and college presidential residences by country, Category:Higher education mathematics buildings, etc. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Similarly, consider Category:University of Washington: not only multiple buildings but multiple campuses, not even all in the same city. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Institutions

While there was a consensus to merge this category to Category:Organizations at Categories for discussion (2021-03), turns out it is not a good solution, as there are several organizations/institutions split, like Category:Educational organizations/Category:Educational institutions. There's also problems of making a distinction between Category:Institutes and Category:Institutions. So I have listed the relevant definitions of these term here.

  • Institute
    • Dictionary.com: "a society or organization for carrying on a particular work, as of a literary, scientific, or educational character", "the building occupied by such a society"
    • Merriam-Webster: "an organization for the promotion of a cause : association", "an educational institution and especially one devoted to technical fields"
  • Institution
    • Dictionary.com: "an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public, educational, or charitable character", "the building occupied by such an establishment"
    • Merriam-Webster: "an established organization or corporation (such as a bank or university) especially of a public character"
  • Organization
    • Dictionary.com: "a group of persons organized for some end or work; association"
    • Merriam-Webster: [defines as a synonym of "association" and "society"]

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What is/are your question(s)? What should we discuss? JopkeB (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: I was busy for more than a week, but my question is whether an "institution" can be distinguished from an "organization". Otherwise, Category:Institutions is a pointless category to keep. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
An organization is a much broader concept than an institute or institution. Organizations vary from a household with only one or two persons to big military armies, ministries, ngo's with a lot of volunteers and employees, and multinational companies, including institutes. This is the umbrella concept.
The word institution can have several meanings, see Institution (disambiguation).
So I think one of the question here should be: how to handle this multiple meanings in Commons (and in Wikidata, because the Wikidata Infobox only mentions the first meaning). At first glance, in the Commons category are only subcategories about the second meaning. I see nothing there that indicates "Laws, rules, social conventions and norms" like the EN-WP article mentions. So I think one of things that should be done is to have another Wikidata Infobox in the Commons category (or the other way around: to move the Commons category from the current Wikidata item to a correct one). And perhaps we should rename this category to something like "Institutions (formal organizations)".
There has been a discussion about Institutes, which did not have a clear conclusion. So I hope we can leave the discussion about Institutes here aside and focus here only on the relation between institutions and organisations, that is complicated enough. JopkeB (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: Hmm, that makes things clear. "Institutions" in Category:Educational institutions refers to formal organizations, while Category:Educational organizations can include other types of organizations. So, my current proposal is to:
That will probably make things better. I'll discuss the Category:Institutes category in a separate CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: My comment on your proposal:
  1. I still prefer renaming Category:Institutions to "Institutions (formal organizations)" to make it clear that this is not about the sociological concept. I agree to include Category:Ensembles of buildings as parent.
  2. I agree that Category:Institution should not have a redirect to Category:Organizations. Perhaps we can make this a disambiguation page with links to:
    1. Category:Social institutions for humanly devised structures of rules and norms that shape and constrain social behavior
    2. Category:Institutions for formal organizations
  3. I agree to link Category:Institutions to the Wikidata item for formal organizations (Q369729).
Please ping me for the new CFD of the Category:Institutes (and perhaps the other participants of the former discussion?). JopkeB (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Delete The distinction between an "institution" and an "organization" is one without a purpose. Most people don't know or care about the differences anyway. Plus just leads to bad categorization. Like having categories for low level schools in ones for "educational institutions" when that's not what they are. Look at this way, marriage is an institution, but having specific categories for "marriage institutions" that include every random marriage chapel out there would just be nonsensical. Although there are "institutes", but rarely is an institute an institution or visa versa. That said, whatever is an institute should be in Category:Institutes. There's no point in having a general category for "Institutions" though as it just needlessly duplicates existing categories. Category:Marriage already exists. It would be redundant to have categories like Category:The institution of marriage or whatever on top of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
@JopkeB: See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:Educational institutions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Clubs and societies

A union category of Category:Clubs and Category:Societies. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I see societies and clubs as two different things and grouping them together could cause confusion, for example engineering societies and scientific societies being more professional organizations being grouped with clubs, which is generally more amateurs or enthusiasts. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I say make them clearly separate. Although Category:Societies conflicts with Category:Society to a degree. It also seems like a lot, if not all, of these organizations are societies in name only. Kind of like how Sam's Club isn't a club to any degree that actually matters on here. So I'd prefer it if the category was just axed and the subcats were moved to something clearer. Maybe Category:Social clubs perhaps? It's not really clear to me what makes a "society" different from a social club outside of the name and at least that doesn't cause overlap with Category:Society. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Societies

What makes an organization a "society"? Merriam-Webster defines it as a "voluntary association", while Dictionary.com does not provide any definition of a "society" as a type of organization. Wiktionary defines it as a synonym of "organization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Here's one for scientific society, "Scientific societies are organized groups of individuals who come together to promote and advance scientific research and knowledge." Also, "Military societies are organizations that support military members and veterans, and promote military history and culture." Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Both can be subcats of Category:Scientific organizations and Category:Military organizations respectively. Otherwise, "society" is nearly synonymous to "organization". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to organizations. No meaningful, clear distinction. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I agree with the points made about no clear distinction between "society" and "organization", particularly since there is no cat description, I think in this case there is merit to keeping the cat as a navigation tool for someone looking for organizations titled "society". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    @FieldMarine: Use Category:Organizations named societies for that case. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Up-merge. Category:Societies conflicts with Category:Society to a degree. It also seems like a lot, if not all, of these organizations are societies in name only. Kind of like how Sam's Club isn't a club to any degree that actually matters on here. So I'd prefer it if the category was just axed and the subcats were moved to something clearer. Maybe Category:Social clubs? It's not really clear to me what makes a "society" different from a social club outside of the name and at least that doesn't cause overlap with Category:Society. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Shingle Style architecture

I don't think there's any reason for "style" to be capitalized here (and in the subcategories), but I thought I'd open a discussion, just to be safe. Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen it capitalized more often than not. "Shingle Style" is something of an open compound proper noun. Unlike "Modern" or "Cubist" or whatever, "Shingle" on its own doesn't have this meaning. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Banks of Bhutan

This category seems to me to be a duplicate of Category:Banks in Bhutan. If not then it should be pointet out clearly waht is the difference between these two categories. I suggest to merge both categories. Robby (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robby:  Support merging Category:Banks in Bhutan to Category:Banks of Bhutan. I think there's a CFD regarding the definition of "bank" to be used in Commons, and we agree that it should refer to the financial institution and not its branches. For branches we can create Category:Bank branches in Bhutan if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Linguistic minorities

Ill-defined category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree. The three subcats are for two individual people and a group of languages. The English Wikipedia category is somewhat the same, having entries for languages, people, and, for some reason, Aesop's Fables.
Maybe the solution is to have a category for minority languages, and subcats for speakers of those languages. Don't ask me where the fables should go. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
 Support A category for minority languages might also be the right place for Category:Cups and mugs in minority languages. --Bücherfresser (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done Category:Minority languages Iketsi (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ethnic minority languages of China

All non-Sinitic languages of China are "ethnic minority languages". Since we categorize Sinitic languages under Category:Chinese languages, we don't need a category for non-Sinitic languages of China. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

If this category is deleted, the 11 languages categories currently grouped under Category:Ethnic minority languages of China would be transferred one class up to the Category:Languages of China. I find the current structure of Category:Languages of China rather messy and an addition of 11 categories could make it messier, but I have no strong objections either. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Foreign languages in the United States

I have troubles defining this category. While English is the most common language of the US, Spanish is also pretty common in the former Wild West. French and German are also historically common in the US. Technically speaking, English, Spanish, French, etc. are all "foreign languages" of the US because they are not considered indigenous to that country, but that's problematic for a country whose majority languages are non-indigenous. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Further, the U.S. has no official language. There have been several efforts to make English official, some as early as the 18th Century. All have failed. The organized English-only movement dates back over a century, and has never succeeded in passing federal legislation. About half the states make English "official", some of them with other co-official languages, some with a different special status short of "official" for some additional language or languages, etc. Just to complicate things further: California is one of the states that makes English "official", but lacking any enabling legislation, that official status is a dead letter. - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Trump seems now to have done so by executive order; I doubt it will stand. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Filmmakers by nationality

Rename both Category:Filmmakers by nationality and Category:Film people by nationality to Category:Filmmakers by country and Category:Film people by country respectively. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree, and also rename all the "American" ones to "from the United States". -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms Halle family

Solle umbenannt werden: Coats of arms of Halle family (es fehlt das "of") GerritR (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  • yep, sehe ich auch so, es gibt aber in commons keine Vorgaben von denen ich wüsste, nichts desto trotz wäre eine gewisse Einheitlichkeit sicher hilfreich -- A1000 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Ukraine with some areas removed

This list scontains maps that disrespect Ukrianian territorial integrity Unas964 (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a reason to delete a category nor files in it like File:Региональные выборы на Украине 2015 - Донор.svg File:Russian-ukrainian armed conflict English version.jpg File:Automobile codes of regions of Ukraine (2014–2022).png MBH 20:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps with Crimea marked under Russian control

This category shoudl be removes as it disrespects the territorial integrity of Ukraine Unas964 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate of still opened discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Maps where marked Crimea as Russian Federation control, should be closed here. MBH 20:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Newspapers by year

We have a mess here. "Newspapers by year" is linked to Category:Newspapers by year of establishment (Q9587647). Clearly these are two entirely different things. The New York Times, for example, was established in 1851, but a given copy of the Times might be from any year since then. There is probably a need for both of these concepts, but they should not be conflated. I could be mistaken, but it looks like Allforrous conflated them 19 April 2024 with no discussion. Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree in that Newspaper by year should categorize newspapers printed in a particular year, not newspapers that were established in a particular year (since I have contributed some New York Times content from the 1920s in my continuing efforts to depaywall public domain newspaper content.) Abzeronow (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree that these are two different things. Maybe using "by year of establishment" and "by year of publication" would keep things clear. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Exactly. Which I believe is how it was until last April. This week was the first time I was working in an area where my attention was drawn to this. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree. these are two separate matters. We have plenty of other "by year of establishment" categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Old men wearing vests

Category exclusively used for Modi, prime minister of India. I'm no expert but I feel like this should contain other examples to be useful? Given that it is for one person I feel like it is redundant and could be deleted Carlinmack (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as the creator. As an Indian, I'm familiar with Modi who commonly wear vests in his public appearances. Considering the lack of familiarity with other senior personalities commonly wearing vests, I can't find other examples of old men wearing vests. Regardless, the images of Modi categorized here can be used as examples of old men wearing vests, unless other examples can be found and we can move those Modi images to Category:Narendra Modi wearing vests. Also, he does not always wear vests (he may wear jackets, Tamil clothes, military uniform or something else, depending on occasion). Considering all these, this category is useful for end users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
@Carlinmack, Bluerasberry, and Ratnahastin: Just to note, I've already created Category:Narendra Modi wearing vests for images of Modi in vests. So this category can be deleted or upmerged to Category:Men wearing vests. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Calatrava bridge in Petah Tikva

Category should be merged into Category:Operation Arnon Bridge. The bridge was renamed "Operation Arnon Bridge" in August 2024 so the category (and subcategory Category:Views from Calatrava bridge in Petah Tikva) should be renamed. DGtal (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Akbar Ramayana

What is a difference between this category and already existing Mughal ramayana? Now it is a mix of all kinds of paintings from different Mughal manuscripts, made for different patrons, not only Akbar. It simply doesn't make any sense and it needs to be deleted Nous (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OK I agree. please meargeBaddu676 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Official portraits of Donald Trump (Second presidency)

the redirect serves little purpose SDudley (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Then {{Bad name}} would suffice. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:1968 Texas election maps

These maps were not created in 1968, so they should not be displayed in the "1968 maps of Texas" category. Enyavar (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks as though this is a general issue - Template:United States election map category by state and year automatically assigns election map categories to "YEAR maps of STATE". I agree that this should probably be disabled - there are already more specific categories for election maps; they don't need to clutter categories which are meant for maps which were drawn in the past. Omphalographer (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar -- So I've been contemplating how best to address this issue, but I haven't come up with a good answer, so I'll just lay out my thoughts:
  • I recognize a valid interest in making a distinction between modern and contemporaneous maps in certain settings, such as for larger (e.g. country) categories that are highly-populated with maps spanning a wide range of time, potentially millennia. I understand this sort of distinction is made (albeit from what I can tell somewhat inconsistently) in certain projects here.
  • But when it comes to U.S. state maps, for the majority of purposes, the distinction between the year the map was made and the year it depicts is inconsequential due to limitations of time (maps rarely spanning more than 2-3 centuries, if that, and most made more recently than not) and smaller geographical areas. So for the most part old and new maps aren't that different. If that difference is significant, it's easy to look at the available files and distinguish new from old since there's rarely more than a handful of maps for any given state and year.
  • There's nothing about Category:1968 maps of Texas that inherently restricts it to *only* "maps of Texas made in 1968". In fact, following through with the logic that the year in the name should be the year made, that would imply that File:1968 Election in Texas by Precinct.svg (map created in 2024) should be categorized as Category:2024 maps of Texas -- even though the 2024 aspect is perhaps the least important thing about that file. Far more important is the nexus of "Map" x "Texas x "1968", which leads into my last point -->
  • My primary interest -- and ultimate goal -- is to be able to locate state maps depicting any given year (e.g. intersection of Map x State x Year), regardless of when they were made. Using the schema as they currently stand seems perfectly reasonable and logical to me -- I can go to Category:1968 maps of Texas and find all maps with the (logical I might add) nexus of "Map" x "Texas" x" 1968". Now, I don't have a problem with old and new maps being kept in separate subcategories or something along those lines (though it sounds to me like a lot of hassle that would ultimately create hundreds of mostly-empty categories) -- as long as they're properly connected and findable. The problem with removing "YEAR maps of STATE" (e.g. Category:1968 maps of Texas) from the template (as you suggested in Template talk:United States election map category by state and year) is that it completely removes the crucial intersection of Map x State x Year. (consider your example Category:1952 North Carolina election maps -- as it currently stands no nexus to other maps showing "Map" x "North Carolina" x "1952". (Sidenote: I realize these two examples are both sparsely populated -- that's exactly what I've been working on, populating state maps by year -- so you can also see Category:1863 maps of Pennsylvania for a better example of how its used as a container category.)
Any thoughts in response? -- Kreuz und quer (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for that consideration, this is not an easy topic and has many facets. I responded in the template talk about the consequences for election maps.
Now, the logical nexus of maps||year||state is not nearly as helpful as you may think. (Yet your nexus of elections||maps||year||state is still great, without a specific category for other maps relating to Texas in 1968.)
For an overview, just check out the Category:1884 maps of South Carolina which holds not a single state map, just a bunch of insurance maps 1:500, created between 1884 and 1911 or even later. Thus, Sanborn maps should in my opinion be categorized by county (and never by-state-by-year). Similarly for county maps and city maps: this 1886 map of Vermont does not in fact show much of Vermont, but just a town. Its current categorization still allows it to be found via search "1886 maps of Vermont" if needed, but that map-by-year-by-state category was upmerged into 1880s maps of Vermont. Further back, it may shock you that this 1690 map of Virginia is actually just a reprint of a map created in 1636 (or 1630?) but the original is again claimed to be from 1606, which means this map predicted the captivity of John Smith in 1607. Categorizing such old maps strictly by year means to ignore a multitude of errors. But even more recently, this map from 1875 shows the real-world situation of 1870. Which year applies? Both? I'd say neither, this is a "1870s map of Media" (by decade, not year!), and since it is the only one, we don't need that decade-category either. It is also certainly not a "1870s map of Pennsylvania" (on the state-level). So it is quite well addressed with Category:Media, Pennsylvania and Category:19th-century maps of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Please consider to stop populating (old) by-year-by-state map categories, I am working since 2022 on upmerging those into by-decade categories. Many people have already recognized how meaningless by-year categories ultimately are. Most just complain (e.g. here); a few have begun to double down on the by-year logic and splitting them further - Category:Maps of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania by year is a result; quite often the subcategories have just one or two maps. The category creators may have thought that many more maps will eventually be included, but (Sanborn aside) we don't have the volume. My counter-proposal is Category:19th-century maps of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Please see the rant on my user page under "Old maps by decade" vs "Old maps by year": Sorting maps by creation year is in my opinion madness, when they should primarily be sorted by location topic. --Enyavar (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bill Clinton after 2001

Fairly arbitrary category and not useful for navgiation, since it's just in Category:Bill Clinton by year anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. The English Wikipedia has made an editorial decision to break this period of Clinton's life into a separate article (en:Post-presidency of Bill Clinton), but that doesn't mean that Commons needs an analogous category, especially when we're already categorizing photos by year. Omphalographer (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Palace of Auburn Hills

Category should be renamed Category:The Palace of Auburn Hills to align with en wiki and the official name of the venue, as also evidenced by the official logo which includes "The" in it Astros4477 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Circles (Pedagogy)

I propose to change this to Category:Circles (pedagogy) NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the current name is incorrect because of the capitalization of Pedagogy, so I'd be happy with the move. However, the term circle pedagogy seems to be a thing, so it may be worth entertaining that alternative option as well. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Halych-Volhynia

Should be merged into Category:Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia. They are essentially the same, as the Wikidata Infobox also indicates. The nominated category focuses on heraldry and manuscripts, the target category more on political and military history, but it's about the same medieval kingdom in Central Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:John Nash

There are so many others called "John Nash" that I think that a disambiguation page may be more useful here, especially as Category:John Forbes Nash may be the more familiar "John Nash" for many people. But as it is such a large category, checking if there is any opposition. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pipeline markers by country

A move (which would mean to merge it with "Pipeline signs by country") was proposed by ŠJů in May 2023, with the rationale: "seems to be a duplicate not compatible with the parent categories". Looking to discuss this further. Further categories to be taken into consideration are:

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicating the previous comment from 15 May 2023:
The idea behind the creation of a separate category was that there are two distinct types of objects:
  • signs - typycally look like plates affixed to walls or poles and tell you where (distance and direction) to find a pipeline or a cable; examples: 1, 2, 3
  • markers - typycally look like small posts on the ground and tell you that a pipeline or a cable is directly below; examples: 1, 2, 3
VileGecko (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hamm

A move to "Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia" was proposed by Crouch, Swale in February 2024, with the rationale "DAB per En Wikipedia". Looking to discuss this further, as it's a category with lots of subcategories and files. It's true than en.wiki uses the dab, but many other projects don't and simply have it as the main Hamm, the way we have it here as of now. Alavense (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support Yes as I proposed, if EN disambiguates then generally we should even if most other projects don't as the threshold for primary topics for categories here is generally higher than Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  On hold The German disambig page de:Hamm (Begriffsklärung) lists seven places named "Hamm" in North Rhine-Westphalia, so "Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia" is still ambiguous and won't avoid miscategorisation. Any better proposal? --Sitacuisses (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe something like Category:Hamm (Hamm-Uentrop) but that's not great so maybe Category:Hamm (city) as it seems to be the only city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Perth Underground station

A move to "Perth Underground railway station" was proposed by Steelkamp in November 2023, with the following rationale: "Despite the fact that the common name for this station is "Perth Underground station", it should be moved for consistency with other categories within Category:Transperth train stations". That would be in line with the name of the category on en.wiki. Looking to discuss it further. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  • @Orderinchaos: could you comment on this? Alavense the person you messaged has passed away. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Chris.sherlock2 Any evidences for your "passed away"? If there are, feel free to mark the deceased template. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
    Extensively reported on WMAU and the en.wikipedia user page is memorialised. Plus I’m an Australian who knows a lot of Australians. JarahTree passed away - feel free to memorialise. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. The notification was sent automatically when I created the CFD. Thanks for letting me know, Chris.sherlock2. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • oppose for now suppport it started as Perth Underground, and has been renamed as Perth station for advertising convience. Its distinctly a separate set of north/south platforms & tracks which are few 100m away under Willima street, with the exception of walkway under Wellington street they arent connected. I think its much better the current separated category structure is ideal. What I dont see in this proposal is what name is being suggested. Gnangarra 22:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: The name suggested by Steelkamp is Category:Perth Underground railway station. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with the proposed actions, no idea why Chris.sherlock2 assumed "passed away" above despite the nominator commented here 2 days after it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
    I said the person he messaged passed away. JarrahTree died. He messaged JarahTree, who was extensively involved in this. I don’t know why you think he hasn’t passed away. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
    I was misleaded by above texts as "Alavense has passed away". Indeed, the actual passed away user is JarahTree, not Alavense. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
    I would not ping a deceased editor. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Robes and cloaks

A COM:UNION category again.  Delete this category and categorize its subcats to either Category:Robes, Category:Cloaks, or both. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename Allforrous (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: Rename to what? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Rename category Allforrous (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Again: what are you proposing that it be renamed to? Omphalographer (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. It doesn't make any sense. Allforrous (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: Can you please clarify what you are saying? "Rename category" is meaningless in CFD unless you suggest a new name of the category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
[[:Category:Indoor and outdoor garments]] Allforrous (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Allforrous: I think I might be wrong, but there are no garments that are neither indoor nor outdoor. There are either indoor garments, outdoor garments, or garments that are suitable for both indoors and outdoors. I'm not sure whether robes, cloaks, and related garments are suitable for both indoors and outdoors, as the new name Category:Indoor and outdoor garments may imply. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Omachi, Nagano

The category was moved from Category:Ōmachi, Nagano to Category:Omachi, Nagano without discussion by Yasu, with the following rationale: "Japanese place names, including municipalities, are officially spelt without macrons; see the Gazetteer of Japan, #2646 provided by the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan". I request further discussion as to what the name of the category should be, which would obviously apply to subcategories. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that I have made a move request before the category was eventually moved by a bot (not by myself) and that for over 7 months, not a single user objected to the move. In short: I followed the formal move procedure and I don't think I failed to comply rules. So, do you think I did fail to comply any of the rules or are you simply not happy with the current name, if I may ask? Yasu (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Yasu. No, neither the former nor the latter. I was just looking for some discussion. There are still some subcategories which don't have the same name and I think it would be nice to have further imput before we go on to move those subcategories. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Take a look into the Japanese municipality categories and you will see that almost all of them are actually spelt without macrons. Numerous major newspapers in Japan, including the Yomiuri, Asahi and Mainichi, use the name Omachi (without a macron). The city also calls itself as Omachi. Given that, Omachi is arguably the most widely used and accepted name for the city, thus most suitable category name IMO. Yasu (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG chess pieces

Smasongarrison requested a move in May 2024, with the following rationale: This category is being used for both a set and named like a general category. I want to move the set to its own page, and preserve the edit history. I request further discussion. The move has been requested for the following categories:

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the floor! I think it would really help tidy up the category. Smasongarrison (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
 Support. Ambiguous category name which has already attracted some images which don't belong to the set. Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Eliseus

A move from Category:Eliseus to Category:Elisha was proposed by Lesgles, with the following rationale: most common name in English. It is going to require further discussion. Alavense (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support rename. It's "Elisha" in many of the subcats, and also the English Wikipedia article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Neomura by country

Neomura is a proposed clade that would contain archeans and eukaryotes, and Wikipedia says that most scientists don't accept the neomuran hypothesis. So there should not be "by country" categories for clades that are not widely accepted by scientists. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on what I'm seeing in the Wikipedia article, this category should probably only be used for media related to the hypothesis itself, not for organisms which would it would hypothetically encompass. Omphalographer (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Seasons by city

I want to remove the "Nature" parent category of each of these subcategories. Currently it appears many (if not most) subcategories have "Nature of" as a parent category and subcategories that contain months, dates, that then include all photography of that particular date, including photos that have nothing to do with nature. As well, seasons by themselves have nothing to do with nature, they're just ways of dividing time. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support. "Seasons by city" categories frequently include photos like File:Litter bin rubbish Lordship Lane Tottenham, London, England 1.jpg (in Category:Spring in the London Borough of Haringey) which certainly aren't of "nature". Omphalographer (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites and Omphalographer:  Oppose removing nature categories from seasons categories, regardless of whether it is a city or a country.

I want to remove the "Nature" parent category of each of these subcategories. Currently it appears many (if not most) subcategories have "Nature of" as a parent category and subcategories that contain months, dates, that then include all photography of that particular date, including photos that have nothing to do with nature. As well, seasons by themselves have nothing to do with nature, they're just ways of dividing time.

Seasons are "ways of dividing time" according to the natural cycle of hot and cold, and season categories are supposed to include images directly associated with seasons (like snow-capped landscapes under "winter", queues for water under "summer", etc.). Categorizing photos like Litter bin rubbish Lordship Lane Tottenham, London, England 1.jpg under season categories is not a good idea, as such photos are not directly associated with seasons. I suggest removing month and date categories from season categories, as they are non-natural ways of dividing time, as opposed to seasons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:People of Great Britain

Merge to Category:People of the United Kingdom, as I can't find any pan-regional content related to people in Great Britain that cannot be categorized under the UK or its countries. For the historical country, we have Category:People of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose merge to United Kingdom. I believe I created the category, which refers to the historical Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800). The name of that country was simply “Great Britain”. The family of categories is not needed for geography, but it would not be helpful to merge it to the post-1800 United Kingdom. I am not sure that “Kingdom of Great Britain” is the better name, but whichever way they are merged those are the two to combine. Moonraker (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Note — the category contains Category:People of Great Britain by decade and Category:People of Great Britain by year, which makes it clear that it is only about the 18th-century. Moonraker (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Judging

Merge to Category:Judgment. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Not sure on this one, there are clear ones of people actively holding up signs, so that would be "judging". I'm sure it's technically also a "judgement" - but to me, "judgement" seems to have a more serious tone to it? In the end, I don't really mind one way or the other, just my 2c. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Blocks of flats

Merge to Category:Apartment buildings. Redundant category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coffee houses

Is there any distinction between Category:Coffee houses and Category:Cafés? Otherwise, merge Category:Coffee houses to Category:Cafés. English Wikipedia has an article on coffeehouse, but it lists "café" as a synonym. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Small houses

A vague term at least. The corresponding category for the WIkidata item should be Category:Tiny houses, not this one. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Robur Siena

This category clearly needs renaming. However, I'm not sure as to what the new name should be. SonoGrazy requested that it be renamed as Category:Siena FC. Is that all right, or should it be Category:Siena F.C.? The name should also be used for the subcategories, obviously. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

"Siena FC", I think. The other names I see under Category:Association football clubs in Spain by autonomous community all leave out the periods. Omphalographer (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Automobile interiors by brand

I see there are quite a lot of variants in the subcategories. So I'd like to get two things straight before I do any standardisation.

1) There are some which follow the model "Category:BRAND interiors", while others go by the name "Category:BRAND automobile interiors". Which one would be preferrable?

2) Once one goes into the subcategories, there are many different approaches: "interiur", "Interiur", "Interiors", "interior"... Would this be a good example, with all the models going by the name "Category:MODEL interiors"?

Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There are enough ambiguous-sounding manufacturer names - like Category:Beijing interiors or Category:Contemporary interiors - that it's probably best to use "BRAND automobile interiors" throughout. With that in mind, "BRAND MODEL interiors" seems like the logical name for a specific model. Omphalographer (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
They should all specify "automobile". For any that don't:
  • If everything in them is automobiles (not trucks or something else), they should be renamed to "<brand> automobile interiors by brand"
  • Otherwise, they should be moved to vehicle interiors by brand.
I probably would have just done that if I'd seen this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:United States Marine Corps in the War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

This category has been nominated for deletion after creation of Category:United States Marine Corps in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). Instead, it seems it should have been renamed to the new cat name to preserve the history of the original cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Antarctic

Redundant category. Can be covered under Category:Antarctica without much issues. Many European languages cannot distinguish the polar region from the polar continent. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral, Nasiruas

Прошу удалить как не актуальную Well-read MountainMan (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cyprus (island)

Potentially redundant category, as media related to Northern Cyprus or the British sovereign bases are often categorized under Category:Cyprus categories. While the British sovereign bases can be distinguished from the country of Cyprus, Northern Cyprus is a state with limited recognition (only Turkey recognise it), and is correctly categorized under Cyprus categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Architectural structural elements

What's the difference between Category:Architectural structural elements can Category:Structural elements? Structures themselves are architectural, and hence we are renaming the corresponding categories to Category:Architectural structures (see the talk page for the relevant CFD). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Satellite pictures by ocean and other basins

What are the "other basins"? Gulfs, bays, seas, or something else? Category names should not be that imprecise. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)