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

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

Category:Nude teenagers

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

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

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

• re: "naked bike ride" - do you mean the short guy, partly cut off on the far left of the photo? FIRST - the whole image clearly falls under NUDISM not sexuality. & SECOND - it is pretty hard to pin down the age of said person cut off on the far left. he is a short male human, slightly post adolescent or at least very much post-pubescent, & you can only see part of his face under a bike helmet (with sunglare/shadowing), a little bit of one shoulder & upper arm, & some frontal parts of his body between waist & knees. he could be anything from about 16-25 or so; his leg hair seems fully grown in & he might have shave his stomach/chest area. NOTHING specifies his age. you could categorise him as an "age-indefinite twink". xD Lx 121 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

for that matter - are minors even ALLOWED to participate in this particular event? serious question, i genuinely have no idea what the rules are for the sfwnbr. san francisco might be fairly open, california too, but u.s. federal law would also apply here, & the organisers would be fully aware of that. Lx 121 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly expect that minors are not allowed to be naked in that event, or any organized urban nudist event. I know that for the Solstice Cyclists in Seattle, they allow underage people to ride along if they are with a parent or guardian, but they are required to be clothed. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I put the discussion at this level (instead of, for example, Nude adolescent boys) because these problems could just as well affect the female category tree; it just so happens that the current problems lie in the male category tree. Brianjd (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too quick to jump to those conclusions. First, I should have dealt with the terminology. A ‘teenager’, strictly speaking, could be up to 19 years old. But the navigation box suggests that here, a ‘teenager’ is a ‘child’ and must be under 18 years old. This definition is supposedly taken from the English Wikipedia article Development of the human body, which does not seem to define (or even use) that term.

That’s given me so much of a headache that I can’t even think about what ‘adolescent’ might mean. Brianjd (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I started a more general discussion at Template talk:Category navigation/people/sidenote#Proper citation needed. Brianjd (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

First: "teenager" is an awkward English-ism. The term is an artifact of the English number system, and doesn't necessarily make sense in other languages. While I recognize that this was decided upon at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Humans by stage of development, it might be worth reconsidering.

But on to the real issue. Categories should not be used to call attention to aspects of images which it would be inappropriate to use the image to illustrate. (For instance, we don't use categories to point out de minimis copyrighted elements which appear in photos.) Using categories to point out that a minor's genitals are visible in a photo, and to describe their precise condition, is indefensible. If there are structural reasons why these categories are being created (e.g. templates which require fields to be filled out or metacategories which recommend diffusal), changes need to be made such that this is no longer the case.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: This is well put. Do we have a policy somewhere that communicates Categories should not be used to call attention to aspects of images which it would be inappropriate to use the image to illustrate. (For instance, we don't use categories to point out de minimis copyrighted elements which appear in photos.) ? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure. Commons policy documents seem a little thin on the matter - Commons:Categories has a lot to say about how categories should be named and organized, but relatively little on what files belong in them. Perhaps this needs to be rectified. Omphalographer (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer and Rhododendrites: A later comment by Sbb1413 points to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:People performing sexual activity, which covers some of those structural issues; I have commented there.

I’d also like to see more discussion on policy implications. Brianjd (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I started Commons talk:Categories#Proposed prohibition on using categories to call attention to certain elements. Brianjd (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Pinging @TwoWings, Dronebogus, Trade, Rhododendrites, Infrogmation as users previously involved in nudity-related discussions. Brianjd (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don’t get what the point of this discussion is. The objection is seemingly to two categories that have no realistic use. The categories could be nominated individually or even just emptied and left to auto-deletion. I can’t offer any further advice on such vague-wave complaints. Dronebogus (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: This isn’t a mere disagreement about whether something is notable. This issue is about as serious as it gets and calls for a high-level systemic response. It is not good enough to play ‘whack-a-mole’ with categories that will surely be re-created at some point. (Edit: It’s not just those two categories. Those two categories are particularly damning, but the entire category tree is questionable to some extent. It needs to be discussed.) Brianjd (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  What exactly is the problem? The vast majority of the category tree is, based on a quick skimming, not objectionable. Unless you object to “nude adolescent boys sitting” “kneeling” or “holding hands”, I see only the aforementioned categories and nothing more. There is obviously no child pornography here, just historical artwork/photography and a single known case of non-sexual nudism. Dronebogus (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: If it’s so obvious that it’s not child pornography, why are there no modern images (except for that one I mentioned, where the adolescent is half-hidden off to the side of the group)? Brianjd (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t know what point you’re making. My point was that there is no child porn. Dronebogus (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Dronebogus: I’ll make my point more explicit then.

  If someone uploaded a modern image like the historical ones you refer to, then I am fairly confident that it would be speedily deleted, it would be referred to Wikimedia’s legal team, the uploader’s account would be locked, and people would seriously consider whether to refer the matter to law enforcement (depending on the exact nature of the image).

  It is not at all clear why historical images, or the categories under discussion here, are treated differently. Brianjd (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0179.jpg is an image by famous photographer Wilhelm von Gloeden that was uploaded in 2012 by a respected user who now has almost half a million edits. It has never been nominated for deletion or reported to law enforcement and User:G.dallorto is not blocked. If you think those things should happen then feel free to try, but nobody in over 10 years seemed to think so. Dronebogus (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for mentioning me. It was not me who created that category. In fact, someone I do not know is adding categories such a "women with shaved genitalia" or "women with furs" or "boys with flaccid penis" to the nude photographs by Wilhelm von Gloeden, whose catalogue I am creating on Commons. Now, if the objection is about the "teenager" part, I agree that this is but an English-language construct, since it also involves 18 and 19 old adult men and women. So we can for instance solve the question by using a different word. Done. However, if the matter is about focusing on sexual details, I must admit I was rather annoyed from these categories, because I cannot see how do they contribute to Wikimedia's project, and I would actually like to get rid of them ALL (including the "women with furs"). However, I never touched them because of Wikipedia's principle: "always assume good faith".
  

  Incidentally, Gloeden was tried thrice for alleged "pornography", and he was acquitted all three times, the last one by the Fascist Regime, in 1943. So, we can prove it was never considered "porn", not even by fascists! Of course, everybody is entitled to despise his work as "pornographic", just as Facebook deleted for "nudity" the crucifixion that an Italian Catholic group had been posting with their Easter reflections (it was hilarious, actually). But this is a slippery slope. We know it ends by censoring Michelangelo's nudes and Crucifixes because, well, it did happen a lot already. So we better not start doing it. Thank you. User:G.dallorto (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  @G.dallorto: The relevant guideline is Commons’ Commons:Assume good faith, but that does not mean that you avoid discussing difficult subjects with users you disagree with. The problematic categorization seems to be largely due to Dispe, who had already been notified of this discussion; I have just written a more specific message on their talk page inviting them to tell us their side of the story.

  What I said above applies to the problematic male categories already discussed here. Regarding the female categories, PetScan says that no Gloeden files are categorized as ‘women with shaved genitalia’ and I cannot find this Women with fur category at all, so I am not sure what you are referring to there. Brianjd (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Dispe has replied below. Pinging @G.dallorto. Brianjd (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Brianjd, Joshbaumgartner, Omphalographer, TwoWings, Dronebogus, Trade, Rhododendrites, and Infrogmation: Actually, the matter is whether or not the subject is pornography. If an adolescent boy aged 13-18 uploads a modern photo of his penis for educational purposes, that's not a porn. I could do so if I were underage (like my pre-pandemic years in Commons), but I'm now legally an adult. I think some people can't make a distinction between nudity and pornography. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Intent is mostly (though not completely) irrelevant to the legal competence of the individual, the legality of the material, and Commons policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sbb1413’s argument seems compelling:

• I think some people can't make a distinction between nudity and pornography. People often say that sort of thing in relation to media depicting adults, especially when applying a core principle of Commons, Commons is not censored.
• If an adolescent boy aged 13-18 uploads a modern photo of his penis for educational purposes, that's not a porn. This seems like a natural extension of using images of toddlers’ penises for medical purposes, as described in an article by The Guardian and the New York Times article they cite. These articles demonstrate the dangers of carelessly making up rules about media depicting nude minors. For what it’s worth, the New York Times article warns that creating such media, even for medical purposes, could be a form of grooming, but doesn’t explain why it’s any worse than observing a minor’s genitals directly.

But Rhododendrites’ reply seems more consistent with actual Commons practice, which seems to be to prohibit all modern media that focusses on nude minors (even if it does not focus on any particular body part). I say ‘practice’ instead of ‘policy’ because, as far as I know, Commons does not have a relevant policy.

The Wikimedia Foundation does have a relevant policy, the Wikimedia Foundation Combating Online Child Exploitation Policy. That policy does seem to make a distinction between nudity and sexualization. For example, it says:

Prohibited content includes (but is not limited to) photographs, drawings, renderings, or videos of minors depicting: Nude body with a focus on genital areas, where that image has no obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose (see below for more details) …

That implies that even media focussing on nude minors’ genitals may be acceptable, provided it has obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose (whatever that means). Despite this, as far as I know, Commons has no such media, not even historical media. Brianjd (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Brianjd: Thank you for inputs. I'm aware of such prohibitions, and I had once given insights at the CFD on Category:People performing sexual activity regarding this. That said, I still believe Commons should have media related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas" with "obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose". So, such media can be speedily deleted but should be undeleted if someone wants to keep the image and they can demonstrate the obvious educational value aligned with our purpose. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: Commons already has such media, but of adults (and that is not controversial, so I am not sure why you are discussing it here). Are you saying that Commons should have such media of minors too?

Your suggestion that such media can be speedily deleted but should be undeleted if someone wants to keep the image and they can demonstrate the obvious educational value aligned with our purpose is a contradiction: if the educational value is obvious, then the media should not be eligible for speedy deletion. Brianjd (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Brianjd: I think I was typing quickly in phone, as I was away home. Anyway, by "such media" I meant any media related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas" unless someone can point to their "obvious educational value[s] aligned with the projects' purpose". Since there are no media of minors related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas" with "obvious educational value aligned with the projects' purpose", I think we can speedily delete other minor media related to "[n]ude body with a focus on genital areas". Regarding Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0179.jpg, this image is acceptable probably because the exact ages of the male humans depicted are not certain, which makes it hard to determine whether or not the male humans depicted are minors. It is also likely that the male humans are young adults rather than minors. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@G.dallorto: Can you comment on the ages of the subjects of the Wilhelm von Gloeden photos? Brianjd (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Why are we specifically attacking teenage nudity? No reasonable person would object to File:Naked child walking beach.jpg even though by the traditional chain of logic it should be more offensive because the subject is younger. Dronebogus (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: This section of the discussion is really about adolescents vs adults, not adolescents vs young children.

To respond to your question: It could be less offensive because the association between nudity and sex is weaker (or perhaps non-existent in the case of mere nudity without focus on the genitals) for younger children. But I agree that this discussion really should cover all minors, and most of the comments here do indeed refer to minors. Brianjd (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, in case if Category:Nude children and its subcats (excluding topless categories) get empty, the Category:Nude people category would get redirected to Category:Nude adult humans, as the only nude images remaining that are not topless would be the adult ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I think for modern images of nude minors revealing their genitalia, the genitalia can be censored with Gaussian blur or similar. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: That may be done in certain contexts to protect the viewer (in which case it should be done consistently, regardless of age), but there is absolutely no reason to do that in the original files. As stated above, Commons is not censored. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kernig's sign cerebrospinal meningitis.jpg (recent DR for an old image) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varicela.jpg (older DR for a newer image). And, of course, en:Nevermind#Artwork. Brianjd (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried to find other categories of concern here. The ones I know about are Adolescent girls wearing lingerie (whose only contents are Adolescent girls wearing brassieres, whose only contents are two photos of girls with their brassieres fully covered and barely visible through their outer clothing) and Upskirt (per Special:Diff/602372081).

On a related note, many nude children subcategories are empty, and their existence might encourage users to find or create media to fill them. In other situations, that would be a good thing; in this situation, it might not be. It looks like these categories were created by Joshbaumgartner, who has already been pinged above. Brianjd (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I now think nude children (i.e. people below the majority age) categories are not problematic as long as they are not related to genitalia, as the WMF policy does not allow having explicit images of underage genitalia unless there are obvious educational values. Since (I think) external genitalia are at the bottom, the real problem lies at Category:Bottomless children. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Historically and in many non-western cultures, children running around naked was/is not seen as problematic. Even today more liberal western societies wouldn’t object to nude children in a non-sexual context. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

See also: Category:Child sexuality and Category:Underage sexuality. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The only contents of Child sexuality are the subcategory Child sexual abuse. One parent category is Children's culture. I think that’s saying that child sexual abuse is an aspect of children’s culture. No, that can’t be right.

Meanwhile, the child sexuality infobox image, Martin Van Maele - La Grande Danse macabre des vifs - 21.jpg, is nowhere to be found. It is under Erotic activities involving children and Masturbation games, even though my understanding is that young children examining children’s genitals is not sexual. Brianjd (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment on only one aspect of this: in this context, teenagers is an ill-chosen word, especially because in most countries it covers both sides of the age of consent (making it a very charged word in this context), but also because it is a term rooted in a particular aspect of 20th- and 21st-century culture. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I also think "teenager" is not an appropriate term for adolescents, because (1) it is not consistent with subcategories like Category:Adolescent boys and Category:Adolescent girls and (2) "teenager" should cover the ages 18 and 19, which "adolescent" does not always cover (for instance, I'm legally an adult but literally a teenager). Instead, I would prefer renaming the whole teenager category tree to Category:Adolescents. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• apropos this -

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

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

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

"teenager" fails in multiple ways on ambiguity.

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

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

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

@Lx 121: The ‘idiot’ you refer to was Joshbaumgartner; although I don’t agree with them on this point, they have done amazing work trying to clean up Commons categories, and personal attacks are not acceptable.

I am tempted to revert your edits here, where as well as casting personal attacks, you are using horrendous formatting to try to dominate the discussion. Brianjd (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• 1. i DID NOT name any users, but you just did. & i do not see much merit in this particular "cleaning up". what's next? renaming the other biology cats to "most common plant/animal name"?
• 2. if you feel my writing style some violates policy, PLEASE refer me to the relevant wmc rule pages?
• 3. if you do "disappear" my objections, i'll be the one reporting you, are per your comments on my talk page.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121: It takes about 10 seconds to find that name in the category history. You had might as well have included the name here. But maybe it is better that I included the name, together with a more balanced comment than yours. Brianjd (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not the ‘English Wikimedia Commons’ either. This is explicitly a multilingual project, and all users (including those not blessed with a native understanding of English) are welcome to comment on categories. Brianjd (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

'BUT - english IS the "root" language of wmc (with services & settings in other languages on offer"). that was literally decided when they created this place.

we operate core functions on wmc in english, THIS discussion is in english, & "competence is required". if you want a "simple english" version of wmc go create it.

OR if you want to go work on multi-lingual categorisation, go for it. BUT on here, right now, the core categorisation is in english BY COMMUNITY CONSENSUS. & we do not have a style rule to "dumb it down" (again if you WANT that to be a rule, go make that proposal & see how it debates out...). Lx 121 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121: Any consensus that emerges here, as the current consensus, is what we have to follow. If you think we should give greater consideration to some previous consensus, perhaps you are the one who needs to supply a link. Brianjd (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• how about this? - Commons:Categories#Selectivity_principle Lx 121 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Lx 121, @Brianjd: Regardless of any insults that were thrown around, on the basis of the matter, I support the proposal to restore the Category:Nude adolescents category name. These categories have been under various discussions over recent years, and sometimes individual discussions are resolved, and in the effort to implement them we bump into other contradictory conclusions or other issues which prompt further discussion. It certainly can make some changes look idiotic in hindsight even if there appeared to be good reason for the change at the time. Besides, only an idiot wouldn't admit to being an idiot sometimes. Josh (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nipples through clothing

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

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

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

Let’s analyse that.

images

Not other types of media?

nipples visible through translucent/transparent clothing

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

erect nipples

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

This can be considered a fetish or paraphilia

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

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

Other types of media: what would there be other than images, given that videos could be considered images? Audio files of people talking about them? Text that mentions them?

Erect nipples: whoever wrote this was probably thinking of cases where you can see that nipples are pushing on clothing, but the clothing is opaque and you can't actually see the nipples themselves. That should probably be a separate category, if we want such a category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I guess technically we should include 3D models, but I was mainly thinking of videos, which I would not consider ‘images’.

I think that if we maintain a category for translucent clothing, then we should also have one for opaque clothing. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:AI-generated gibberish

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

 Support Makes sense and this is also using the standardized cat-naming-scheme. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Better keep the name Category:AI-generated gibberish, or delete the cat with all content. Out of scope anyway. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Most of the images in the category are in use somewhere, so are in scope. Belbury (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep the name unchanged: There’s merit in calling a spade a spade. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't seem accurate to categorise a single-error word like Wikiıpedia as gibberish. Belbury (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Newspaper extra

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

Yes, exactly as you stated. But, there is one reminder.

(de:Extrablatt (Presse)) and (en:Newspaper extra) are, different link.

What is the best way... --Benzoyl (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Gabrielli Palace (Piran)

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

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

Category:Transgender non-binary women

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

Non-binary women don't necessarily experience womanhood and you're ignoring polysemy. Let me stupefy a little further:

This makes it clear how it's used. Rebecca Sugar is a nonbinary woman and she made a lot of fictional characters that are also both non-binary and female. The term is very consistent as it appears in several wikis: wikia:mogai-genders:Non-Binary Woman and https://mogai.miraheze.org/wiki/Non-Binary_Woman .

And why contradiction should matter if you validate multigenders or demigenders in general? LIrala (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Just move to Category:Non-binary people. This has grown inte a mess. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Main n-b category is well diffused. Being a non-binary woman or non-binary trans woman is a specific and consistent identity many people experience, such as J. E. Sumerau, Bryanna Nasck, and Jaloo. cat:transfeminine people already exists for those with similar identity as well. and Stu Rasmussen with the man counterpart. queercore genderqueer used to be a more encompassing umbrella than the given restricted definition of non-binary. but since those terms are merged nowadays into one thing, then we have to deal with people complaining and other people feeling uncomfortable and coining more labels to fit in. LIrala (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions and comments above, this category looks like plain nonsense. If the person is non-binary, then is not a woman, by definition. Just move it to Category:Non-binary people. Darwin ^Ahoy! 03:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Early lives by individual

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

• I certainly don't like "early lives".

@Sbb1413: why would there by any value even to a clearer category like "childhood by individual"? I can't imagine someone coming down that branch of the category tree with any intent other than obsessive categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• I see the point of categorizing images into categories like "childhood" or "youth", especially in cases where year categories are not sufficient (birth year not certain, or the lack of images that could suffice year categories). Otherwise, I think the standard year categories are fine. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Sbb1413: Year categories don't work for subjects like Zeus and Jesus, both of which are in this category. Similar ones are Category:Childhood of Virgin Mary, Category:Dionysos as a child, etc. Those childhood categories could just go under Category:Children somewhere -- maybe "Children by name"? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  These all feel like exceptional cases. Some of them could benefit from bespoke categories (e.g. "Greek deities as children"), but I don't think they need to be made part of a single overarching category. Omphalographer (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete. This isn't a good fit. Commons categories for photos of individual people are typically subdivided by years (like Category:Bill Clinton in 1963), not by vaguely defined periods like "early life". It's not terribly clear to me how this category would be applied to those sorts of categories, or why it'd be useful to do so. (Going on a tagging spree adding many thousands of "PERSON in YEAR" categories to this category is simply out of the question.) Omphalographer (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete "Early life" is vague. It could mean childhood. It could mean the part of a person's life before they became important, which could include childhood and early adulthood. "Early life" works as a section in a Wikipedia article, but not as categories here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Weather and climate

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

I agree that this is a union category, and that those are problematic. I don't think all of the content would fit in that parent category, though. I think the best thing to do would be to split the category, although that might be difficult.

I also think it needs a different parent category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Less than 1-year-old humans

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

The established definitions used extensively on Commons are quote

"Babies (birth to 24 months)

Boys (2–13 years [puberty])

Adolescent boys (13–17 years)

Men (18+ years)

Young men (18–39 years)

Middle-aged men (40–59 years)

Old men (60+ years)

Definitions come from, but are slightly modified from, the Physical stages of human life as found at Wikipedia:Human development (biology)." Headlock0225 (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The quoted definitions are mostly obsolete thanks to several recent CFDs, and the fact that the cited Wikipedia article no longer mentions these age ranges (the age ranges were removed more than 16 years ago). The new definitions are outlined at {{Human stages of development}}, and while I've not explicitly mentioned the age range of babies, the WIkipedia article Infant mentions that the terms "infant" and "baby" usually refer to a human aged below a year. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your argument. On one hand you seem to be arguing that the definition of a Baby or Infant does not have precise chronological age. That seems to be what the Wikipedia article on Infant is saying. Then you propose that Babies are always and only below the age of 1 year so the Categor:Less than 1-year-old humans is redundant. The Wikipedia article on Infants says that the term Infant is “typically applied to very young children under one year of age; however, definitions may vary and may include children up to two years of age” This to me makes perfect sense. Would you argue, for example, that this File:Physical exam of child with stethoscope on chest.jpeg is not a baby or that this File:Bayi perempuan berusia 1 tahun.jpg is not a baby or this File:Female child nineteen months old.jpg?? Headlock0225 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Further thoughts. For most images of babies, the age is not identified. They are clearly Babies but could be, for example 10 months, 11 months 12 months or 14 months. Category:Less than 1-year-old humans is for images of Babies where the age is known. It fills in an obvious gape in the age ranges in Category:People by chronological age Headlock0225 (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Graffiti in Bangladesh after July revolution

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

@Bodhisattwa:  Delete all per nom. I don't see any rationale in support of keeping reproductions of modern 2D art in Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bodhisattwa: kindly enumerate all file names here? So that files can easily be undeleted/restored (without the admins having to browse through deletion logs) if the artwork copyrights expire many decades from now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 and JWilz12345: , there are 1620 files according to this Petscan query. They are listed here -

Category:Humanity

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

 Keep as is – no idea why you think this would be about "the quality of being benevolent; humane traits of character; humane qualities or aspects".. Nothing there indicates that, no subcategory and not the Wikidata infobox or the common use of that word. No action needed except that cat Mankind should redirect there. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be fine, probably. But there can be stuff related to "the quality of being benevolent; humane traits of character; humane qualities or aspects", which would be categorized under Category:Humanity. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that is the wrong name and that there can be such content doesn't mean any change is needed. Create a new category for that and check what this is commonly called. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Middle age

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

Category:Мангистауская область

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

Category:Saint Visarion the New Church, Bucharest

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

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

Category:Wokeness

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

Category:Nude adolescent boys by view

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

 Wait — Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude_teenagers is ongoing and may also affect this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any ongoing lengthy discussions about "who is smarter than whom". This is about subcategories. One has only one file and that file could well be kept in the other subcategory. That makes those subcategories unnecessary. When the said subcategories are unnecessary then this category is also unnecessary. Therefore DELETE all three and Close this discussion. 191.125.3.162 13:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, upmerge. No need for this breakdown. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Diagrams

Concerning Template:Diagrams. See:

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 83#Edit war about Diagrams template
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams by subject

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

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

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

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

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

• General diagram types
• Specific diagram types

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

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

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

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

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

From the previous discussion and side agreement at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Diagrams by subject the diagram template is modeled on Template:Propaganda that has been on many propaganda categories since 2010. It solved a lot of problems by clarifying what was allowed in propaganda categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to change as a result of this discussion, @Timeshifter: ? I agree that "diagram" would not be used in an article to describe a basic map, or a basic statistical table, bar chart, or graph.Royalbroil 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Royalbroil. I started this specific category discussion to make the diagram template more official. The other category discussion where this was first discussed had a different original focus. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I Support the diagram template as written above. Royalbroil 14:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the template text above. The categorization "system" we have now, while longstanding, was clearly created without forethought, and as a result, it is a total mess. This seems like a reasonable proposal to fix it. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Coming into this debate as a native German speaker, I can confirm that in German we understand all charts to be diagrams, and call them "Diagramm" as we don't have another word for it. German "Diagramm" includes all forms of geometrical abstract depictions like pie charts, 2D/3D-graphs, population pyramids but also pyramid diagrams and organizational charts. Specific charts may be called by their type (bar charts = "Balkendiagramm", line charts = "Liniendiagramm", pie charts = "Kreis-/Torten-diagramm")...

What the OP calls diagram (I have to assume) is called "Schaubild" in German, and all charts ("Diagramme") are still a subgroup of those, with other subgroups being technical/anatomical schematics ("Schema"), biological drawings ("Illustration"), maps ("Karte")... Speaking of maps: "Charts" in German refers specifically to (musical) record charts; the related word "Karte" means maps, and a map is strictly not considered a "Diagramm".

I have no problem moving stuff into "Chart"-categories if that is the proper name in English parlance, but consulting dictionaries and the en-WP itself I have come to doubt the original statement presented here. I agree however: the proper categorization of diagrams, charts and other schematic information in Commons is really a mess currently, because there is no overarching structure that an unsuspecting editor will be guided into. Just one example, "Political organization charts" are not charts if I understand the OP correctly, but actually diagrams? --Enyavar (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Enyavar. Thanks for the info. Yes, those are diagrams in Category:Political organization charts. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have proposed to resurrect the Charts and diagrams category to resolve the issue on whether an information graphic is a chart or a diagram. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

See Category:Information graphics. It is a broad category that includes much more than just charts and diagrams. It also includes maps and illustrative explanatory graphics. As Enyavar pointed out concerning the German definition of "diagramm": "a map is strictly not considered a 'Diagramm'."

The beauty of using "infographics" is that it allows all images with some abstract info in them to be put in one category. Charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, illustrative explanatory graphics, etc..

You created (on May 25, 2024) the category of Category:Statistical graphics. I support the idea of it. But I think Category:Data graphics is better. "Data graphics" is used in the real world. Do google searches of it. An example:

https://dtkaplan.github.io/Lessons-in-statistical-thinking/L02-Pointplots.html

See also: User_talk:Prototyperspective#Diagrams. It may be in the talk archive there by the time you go there. He likes "data graphics" too.

Category:Statistical graphics is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. As "Data graphics" would be.

Data graphics, unlike "statistical graphics", can eventually be shortened to "datagraphics". The single word is not in this dictionary yet:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/datagraphic

But I think datagraphics will be eventually. Just as "infographics" has ended up in dictionaries. In the meantime we can use "data graphics". It is already happening. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sbb1413, Prototyperspective, and I have agreed, and so Category:Statistical graphics now redirects to Category:Data graphics. It is a subcategory of Category:Information graphics. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

What is your suggestion for a better name for the category? Having read the relevant passage of his Polish article, I would think we could replace "homophobic" with "anti-LGBT" which would also include trans people (whom he also disparaged on the pulpit). --Enyavar (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I suggest Category:Demonstration of support of Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski. This is all that can be verified from the image. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Or even Category:Demonstrations supporting Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski, thus doing away with confusing prepositions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

True Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Several of these people are figures of public interest who participated prominently in a public event, even as speakers. They were not caught by accident and they also proudly identify with their political direction in these images. So I vote to  Keep this documentation of a political movement. Deletion means removing a part of Polish history. As a compromise, faces of bystanders can be retouched to preserve their identity. --Enyavar (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a procedural matter; if you object to these photos being available on Commons, please take them to COM:DR. Omphalographer (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Institutions for the deaf and dumb

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

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

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

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

Category:Institutions named "for the Deaf and Dumb" perhaps? The use of "named" makes it clear that we're quoting the official names without endorsement. Omphalographer (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, thanks. I'll make the change in the next days unless someone else jumps in with a better idea. --Enyavar (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep It exactly describes the content in plain English. There is no insult. The deaf self-describe as deaf. So do the dumb. So do those who are both deaf and dumb. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep (i.e. "no renaming") per Laurel Lodged. Also, if we go by Enyavar's rationale of that the category name is "probably going to be seen as offensive", we should also rename Category:Old people to something else (like "elderly people" or "senior citizens"), as "old people" or similar "may harm feelings" to some (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment "Deaf and Dumb" was a combination term used by the founders/administrators of such institutions who were not deaf and dumb themselves - so I wouldn't exactly say "self-described". I'd also like to point out, that I created this category earlier on the same day after noticing how many "deaf and dumb" schools there had been, and then I had second thoughts about my chosen category name if seen without the historical lens. But sure, if not renaming turns out to be the consensus, I'm also okay with that. --Enyavar (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep - it is what they were called. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Postcards of the Cherry Street Bridge

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

•  Support Its a DAB on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
• Question: do we have photos of any of the others? - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  Even if we don't yet, there's enough Cherry Street Bridges out there that confusion is inevitable. Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  • We have hundreds of photos of the multiple Cherry Street bridges, here in Toronto. My recollection is that, when I looked into this, fifteen years or so ago, I found at least a few images of Cherry Street bridges, from cities other Toronto and Toledo. Geo Swan (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support My main issue is with disambiguating the old and new bridges since I don't think something like "Cherry Street Bridge (Toledo, Ohio, -1913) or similar works. It's not a super big deal though. As a side to that, there's Category:Cherry Street Strauss Trunnion Bascule Bridge. Although it doesn't seem to be called "Cherry Street Bridge" officially, a lot of the images of it are shortened to just "Cherry Street Bridge." So it's probably worth turning Category:Cherry Street Bridge into a DAB even if it's the only other bridge on here with a somewhat similar name. Again though, if the categories are disambiguated I'd appreciate it if whomever renames the categories for the old and new bridges in Toledo do so in a way that makes sense and keeps them separate. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Do we know what year the earlier bridge was built? Usually that is how we disambiguate things like two successive bridges with the same name. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Category:Slop

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

 Move without leaving a redirect. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support per nomination, AI slop is more specific, as most images here (perhaps all?) are AI generated. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Delete Unless there is some kind of criteria or rule for the use of this category then the content will always be completely arbitrary. Judging from the discourse of AI generation on Commons recent months i have little reason to believe the category will be used in good faith--Trade (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Finished

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

Category:Children

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my proposed human stages of development in Commons: {{Category navigation/people/sidenote/sandbox}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support but I'd use "Minors" (probably with a qualifier to avoid ambiguity) rather than "Underage people" which would be ambiguous and not very meaningful. I'd also consider having Category:Children as a DAB page due to the meaning of "Children" to refer to someone's offspring regardless of age and due to the fact as noted sometimes the term "Child" can refer to someone under the age or majority. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose A person aged 12 years is still a child, even if he/she is pubescent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't mentioned any exact age criteria for what constitutes a child, as I no longer want such categories to be defined by specific age ranges. However, for sake of approximation, a human aged between 0 and 13 can be considered a child, while those aged between 13 and 18 can be considered an adolescent (not "teenager"). Otherwise, the terms are supposed to be independent of specific age ranges. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  I’m not too fussed about ages either, as long as we are clear about whether categories include under-18s, over-18s or both.

  But let’s test this a bit. A ‘boy’ is a ‘male child’. Supposed we define ‘childhood’ in such a way that it stops before ‘adolescence’. Then what is an ‘adolescent boy’? Brianjd (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that this is separate from chronological age, it is a stage of development which may not track chronological age the same for all people. I think the 'boy' question is valid. If we break down 'children' into 'infants', 'children', and 'adolescents', then does 'boys' breakdown into 'male infants', 'male children', and 'male adolescents'? Certainly possible. I think we should probably have a plan for it though before we resolve this. Josh (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

For context, this discussion follows from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Teenagers, which itself follows from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Nude teenagers. Brianjd (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I didn't see myself as "child" when I was 17. And actually a 17 old person is hard to affirm that's a child. Imho until 14 you're a child, from 14 to 18 you're a boy or a girl, from 18 onward you're either a man or a woman (and technically, reprising the topic raised in the above post, teenager means a person between 13 and 19 but I think I don't say anything new about that). But these are only our categorizations. The main problem is that we often use categorizations prone to ambiguity. For example, association football players from England is a categorization which is not ambiguous: either one belongs to it or not. All the categorizations here should have the same clarity. And "Children" is one of those. -- Blackcat 07:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Blackcat Fair point, but we certainly aren't trying to account for every user's personal self-identification here. As for ambiguity, I suppose it is fair to say that any use of the English language is open to ambiguity by those who want to find it, but the current definition of Children as used on Commons from essentially the dawn of the project is 'people under 18 years of age', which is pretty unambiguous unless you really want to be pedantic. Josh (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 I like your proposal, but on practical grounds, my main issue is with retaining the category name 'children' for one of them, when currently Category:Children covers infants, young children, and adolescents. The reason is that while I think in the distant future, when all media are adequately diffused into those three, the current Children cats will be an unnecessary intermediate level, in all practicality, given the massive amount of media we are talking about, we will still need the umbrella category covering infants, young children, and adolescents. Perhaps the middle category could be 'young children' (between infant and adolescence) for this period. Eventually, when the diffusion is well implemented, then we can discuss disposing of the umbrella level and at that time renaming young children to children if it seems warranted. Josh (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale, Laurel Lodged, Brianjd, Joshbaumgartner, and Blackcat: It looks like limiting the term "children" to non-adolescent minors will cause problems with defining the terms "boys" and "girls", both of which refer to young males and young females respectively. So, I now propose the following structure instead:

• Category:Children (boys/girls) — people below the age of majority.
  • Category:Adolescents (adolescent boys/girls)
  • Category:Young children (young boys/girls) — non-adolescent young people.
    • Category:Babies (male/female babies)
    • Category:Toddlers

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Why would it cause problems with the terms "boys" and "girls"? A boy or girl is a child or adolescent so I don't see why there is a problem with categorizing a boy or girl as a child or as an adolescent depending on which they are which might it not be easy to say. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The category name should define what is meant. For example Category:Adolescents (aged 14-18 years) and Category:Young children (under 14 years). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged We don't structure category names like that. We give as short and succinct a name as possible and the definition is handled through hat notes and other means. Parenthetical dab information is only to be used when we have multiple categories that would have the same name but for the parenthetical info. If we wanted to include the chronological ages, we would just do so directly in the name such as Category:14- to 18-year-old adolescents and Category:Children under 14 years old or some such. However, I don't even think we want to do that as Sbb1413 has stated, these intentionally are not rigidly tied to specific chronological ages. We already have chronological age categories in place for that. Josh (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: I agree, and although I once tried to tie stages of development with chronological ages, turns out that's not a good idea. Instead, I try to define these categories based on certain "bright lines". For example:

• Category:Adult people — fom the age of majority to death
  • Category:Middle-aged people — no obvious "bright lines" to define with (to be nuked)
  • Category:Old people — for people showing obvious signs of old age
  • Category:Young adults — no obvious "bright lines" to define with (to be nuked)
• Category:Children — from birth to the age of majority
  • Category:Adolescents — from the onset of puberty to the age of majority
  • Category:Young children — from birth to the onset of puberty
    • Category:Babies — from birth to first walking
    • Category:Toddlers — the early years of walking (toddling)

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support @Sbb1413 That looks good. I wouldn't necessarily see the need to include babies and toddlers under young children, since this would be a new category definition and we can easily just have it be from toddler to adolescence. I know that obviously 'young children' can mean a lot of things, just as 'children' can, but the point is how we define it for Commons use, not its many and varied uses in the world at large. However, if you want to add the extra level of hierarchy and nest babies and toddlers there, it isn't technically a problem, so I'd support your proposal either way. Josh (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Learning programs

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

Category:Rote learning

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

Category:Rubab

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

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

Category:SVG by subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Georgian churches in Turkey

• Rename they are not Georgian in an ethnic or cultural identity sence. They are all buildings of the Georgian Orthodox Church. So suggest Category:Church buildings of the Georgian Orthodox Church in Turkey or Category:Georgian Orthodox churches in Turkey. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  agree. -- Geagea (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Timepieces

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

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

Category:Neo-Norman architecture

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

• Rename to Category:Norman Revival architecture and redirect to Category: Romanesque Revival architecture
• I could Create new Category:Neo-Norman architecture, link it to en:Category:Neo-Norman architecture and split the old category.
• Rename Category:Norman architecture in Uruguay to Category:Neo-Norman architecture in Uruguay, as it relates to Norman vernacular revival architecture TSventon (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Concepts by city

This CFD is for the following categories:

• Category:Concepts by city
• Category:Concepts by continent
• Category:Concepts by country

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

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

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

 Delete all and also Category:Concepts, as pretty much any topic (i.e. main categories in Category:Topics) can be a concept. I believe that Category:Topics should be the root category for topics, where the topmost topics would be categorized. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: There's also Category:Ideas to consider. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, another problematic category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. There may be a good reason for top-level Category:Concepts, especially as a catcat, but geographic breakdown at that abstract level makes no sense. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete: the four categories about concepts by location mentioned by Auntof6. The others need seperate CFD's. --JopkeB (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

There are three, not four. :) Concepts by region was dealt with by the earlier CFD. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Where a lot of these categories seem to be coming from is an attempt to take a concrete "topic by location" category, like Category:Fireplaces in Belarus, and creating parent categories representing abstractions on the topic while leaving the "by location" intact, e.g. Category:Heating in Belarus, Category:Climate control in Belarus, Category:Thermodynamic processes in Belarus, etc. This isn't an appropriate way to analyze these topics - the question of "what is a fireplace, anyway" should be answered at the main Category:Fireplaces, not by every subcategory involving them. Omphalographer (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:History of Ireland by topic

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

Category:Lechitic culture

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

Category:Disasters and accidents

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

I agree. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:Items

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

Objects, I think. Entities are something different, although there are some things in that category that I don't think belong there. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Or even things, since some of the subcats are things like bus routes and space missions. Or maybe it needs to break down to more than just one place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No qualms. I only created this cat to join at the top some subcats, like Religious items and Items by number. I doub that "item" is a good synonym for "object", even at the rarefied level of the Commons cat tree, so close to the root, but okay. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Causes of World War II

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

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

Category:Sanborn maps by year

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

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

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

• Category:Sanborn maps of California has all the Sanborn categories of the state, organized by county; and is subcat to "old maps of (cities of) California" --> already  Done, fine
• Category:Sanborn maps of Alameda County, California has all the Sanborn categories for that county, and is subcat to "old maps of Alameda County, California" --> already  Done, fine
• Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Alameda, Alameda County, California is subcat to "((old) maps of) Alameda, California" - depending on which category exist. --> already  Done, fine
• However, at no level should Sanborn maps be a subcat to "1897 maps of California". -->  No

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

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

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

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

 Comment In Commons usage "maps of California" does not mean only maps of all of California, just like "flags of California" does not mean only state flags, and also includes (for example) city and county flags.

We could easily have a subcat of Category:1898 maps of California something like Category:1898 maps of California (full state). Someone could probably do better for naming than that, but I think my concept is clear. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I suggest Category:State maps of California for maps of the entire state. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean there, JMabel, but what exactly is the benefit from this Sanborn map from 1948 being categorized in the "1897 maps of California" category branch, where it currently is placed? The Sanborn maps category tree is... problematic that way. (point 1: Sanborn maps are regularly placed in the wrong years)

Another thing is that ordering all cadastral plans of California by the year they were published is impractical, when they each only cover two or three street blocks. It makes almost no difference if a Sanborn map is wrongly categorized under "1898 maps" or "1886 maps", but it is a huge difference when that map is placed under the wrong location, like "Nevada County" instead of "Los Angeles County" (point 2: categorization by location should take precedence over that by year)

It also seems California in 1898 already covered a sufficiently large territory that it actually had subdivisions - yes even back in 1898. If we're actually going to make subcategories, then shouldn't we make a subcategory for each subdivision, instead of making a subcategory for "exception" where the whole state is concerned? Like, "1898 maps of Mendocino County, California"? Around ~60 Sanborn files qualify for that category, so it wouldn't be empty. Next, "1898 maps of Nevada County, California"? Around ~80 Sanborn files qualify for that category. And so on. In the end, you will have year-by-county map categories for all counties in California that got served by Sanborn in that year... Oh wait, that is basically what we already have with the "Sanborn-maps-by-county" maps, as they are currently organized already. (point 3: The Sanborn map category structure already does intend to organize them by years, internally - that structure just needs to be straightened out; and for some states it already is). --Enyavar (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to answer most of that, but the benefit is that is is part of a consistent naming system and pattern of inheritance for categories. Just as all maps of California go somewhere under the category for maps of the United States, all maps of parts of California go somewhere under the category for maps of California. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

And, yes, county-by-county subcats are also perfectly appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep The current Sanborn maps structure and I don't see the issue here. They really should maps within the maps of the United States as a type of United States map for that particular year. Individual maps of a specific city, if we don't have a category, will be buried within the map for the state, for the county or in Category:1948 maps where they are now. The various 'maps' that are Civil War-era plans aren't formal maps of anything. Just because you personally don't think the year of the plans matter but the year of what you consider "real" maps does isn't a justification for getting rid of them. If I look in 1948 maps of California and that happens to include 'plans' for a home inside California then until you come up with the alternative name and get approval for that structure, then it belongs in 1948 maps. Regardless of whether you personally hate the idea of calling them maps, it doesn't mean we should remove them from the current categorization and leave them uncategorized and overturn the years of work a lot of people have done categorizing these as maps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  But again, why are the maps which you talk about above, those that were produced in 1948 classified as "1897 maps"? Make it make sense to me. --Enyavar (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Re "Civil War-era plans" - could you provide examples for that? I am not aware of 1860s Sanborn maps.

  Re "getting rid of them" - nobody talks about deletions. My concern is that Sanborn maps are unneccessarily packed directly into the by-year categories. Just for an example, the maps of California between 1884 and 1899 consist to 99%+ of Sanborn maps. If you moved them into "<year> Sanborn maps of <state>", I would not object to them that much. --Enyavar (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The Civil War-era plans aren't Sanborn maps. If you look at the hundreds of maps that make up Category:1861 maps of Virginia, is File:(Battery no. 3) ; - outwork no. 1 ; outwork no. 2. LOC lva0000110.jpg a map or not? It is to me. I'm saying these are maps and you haven't identified a criteria other than "I want Sanborn maps separated because I like my map categories to look a specific way." The goal here is to organize our images so that people can find the ones they need, not to create category that look beautiful for people to browse while thousands of actual useful images are hidden away because they aren't a perfect match for what you think a map of California in a specific year looks like. Yes, right now, of course there are few other maps from the late 1880s of California so why remove the ones that do exist? If you want them broken down further in the state one, then suggest that but there is no consensus to completely separate them from the universe of maps because the vast majority of people uploading and sorting them consider them maps. It feels like you want all of them removed at this time and there is no consensus for that since they intertwine at the state, county, and city level, along with the separate individual cut-outs people do to add to articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• For Washington State we have Category:Old maps of Washington (state) => Category:Old maps of cities in Washington (state) => Category:Sanborn maps of Washington (state), then a breakdown city by city. Within the particular city we'll have something like Category:1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington, which does have Category:1896 maps of Washington (state) as a parent (for a category, not for individual maps). I think that's reasonable, especially since the content of the category adds up to a rather detailed map of Tacoma. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  🤨 And did you notice that one of these child categories of 1896 is Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Kalama, Cowlitz County, Washington, which also contains Sanborn maps from 1908 and Sanborn maps from 1930?

  🤨🤨 P.S.; there is also the issue that 1896 maps of Washington state does have 55 Sanborn maps that are directly filed under the category, and not contained in their own Sanborn maps categories.

  Sorry that I continue to repeat these two arguments. --Enyavar (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  • So some things are badly categorized. But it doesn't invalidate the general approach, just means further categorization work is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

    There are also multiple uploads of the same file separately organized and thousands missing. If you had the main category organized at the X year maps of state Y then people can easily see the duplicates and move them together. It is giant project that has been worked on for years and is barely been cracked at because it's really hard to make it clean enough for bots to assist on. - Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials

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

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

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

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

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

Just in case, I've boldly recreated the respective categories to show the differences between the two. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Unlike trucks and buses there is a lot of overlap between monuments and memorials. If you look at the categories like Category:Monuments and memorials in Bedfordshire there isn't separate categories for Category:Monuments in Bedfordshire and Category:Memorials in Bedfordshire so the extra layer of navigation doesn't apply and sub categories like Category:War memorials in Bedfordshire exist which are fine. This doesn't seem like w:WP:NARROWCAT. I think w:WP:OVERLAPCAT would apply as many topics would end up being in both categories if we split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Crouch's comment above. The proposed distinction between "monument" and "memorial" is slight at best, and it doesn't survive contact with concepts like national monuments in the United States - most of which aren't structures at all, but rather regions of protected natural land like the Grand Canyon or Muir Woods. In a lot of contexts, these terms are used interchangeably; grouping them together in a category is fine. Omphalographer (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale and Omphalographer: It seems like there's no consensus for the split, but the problem is that most of the "monuments and memorials" subcategories are put under either "structures" or "objects". I support making "monuments" and "memorials" as direct main categories separately. While I can see the overlaps between monuments and memorials, but I can also see the monuments that are not memorials, like the Category:Cultural heritage monuments that are not commemorative, and the Category:National monuments Omphalographer has cited. For the same reason, both monuments and memorials cannot come under Category:Commemoration, only memorials come under it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

If a "Structures in X" category doesn't exist I think they could just be put in "Buildings in X". Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Yeah, that's something many users do when a "Structures in X" category does not exist, although I don't think that's a good practice. But that's another topic, the point is that both monuments and memorials can be something beyond just buildings and structures, like coins, places, trophies, personal belongings, etc. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd expect most of the time it works fine but yes there are cases like as you say it comes down to things like coins that it doesn't work as well which points to splitting the categories but otherwise it seems to work and the split would probably duplicate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Inns in the United Kingdom noting that the different isn't distinct though with monuments and memorials there is probably less overlap but still lots. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Islands of the North Atlantic

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

Category:Trusteeship

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

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

Category:Maps of California by year

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

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

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

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

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

As there has not been much movement so far: @Broichmore, Adamant1, Omphalographer, Prototyperspective, Pi.1415926535, DarwIn, Nosferattus, Jheald, LPfi, and Mike Peel: you participated in the previous village pump talks. Now, I just wanted to brush this up again, with a concrete proposal. This is not urgent at all, but eventually I would like to have a re-structuring as outlined above. --Enyavar (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks for the ping. I fully support getting rid of the "by year" categories. I don't think there's any actual utility to having an 1892 map of some random small town in northern California in the same category as one for a similar place in southern California. It's also questionable that there's any actual difference between a map created in 1892 and one made in 1893. Most, if not, all people find maps by the location first and foremost anyway. I don't see a problem with categorizing them by decade just in case though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - These categories are completely unhelpful (and unnecessary). Ironically, they make it impossible to actually find maps by time period as you have to tediously go through every year separately, many of which only have a single file in them. Nosferattus (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Some of these by-year categories already have hundreds of files; merging them into decade categories would make them too large to easily navigate, and would flood the California-by-year categories. Many maps can be accurately dated to the year level - public transit map, for example, can often be dated to the day that a service change took place, and thus the year is absolutely certain. I wouldn't be opposed to upmerging years in the decades that have <5 maps per year, but the busier years should not be upmerged. The upmerging of the Massachusetts categories was done without consensus and has made it more difficult to find maps of a specific year. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Principally yes, there is much merit in categorizing (same) stuff by year/date. But it's not a great primary key if the stuff you categorize is not actually the same. An insurance map of Farmington, an election map of Los Angeles, and a tectonic map of the Bay Area are so vastly different things, that it doesn't help you finding them under "1912 maps of CA". And yet, old map files are often categorized just by the year and not by the actual locality, which turns these categories just into an unorganized dumping ground, despite all good intentions.
But granted: if after re-arranging the maps by locality, it then turns out that we still have too many files per city/county/state and decade, exceptions can certainly be made. (However, files can usually be subdivided in another way, like these 100+ files from "1905 maps of Boston" which were really all the same single map). All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Support. Adding to the arguments already presented, the publishing date of the map usually is year(s) later than the actual date of the map, making such precise dating kind of useless, at least for the map itself. But it should be done with good sense and taking into account the caveats presented by Pi.1415926535.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this needs a careful and serious approach, done file by file. --Enyavar (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pi.1415926535. There are actually hundreds of maps for a particular year and I agree that upmerging them without a larger consensus makes it more difficult to find maps by a particular year. This is largely an issue of a lot of maps not being categorized at all beyond "old maps". You need to look at a category where people have broken down the maps extensively by individual year like Category:1860s maps of Virginia. If you took out the individual by year maps, you're ending up with roughly 1000 maps for the single decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the maps in Category:1860s maps of Virginia seem to be duplicates. I assume the same goes for maps of California. So that can easily be solved by creating more specific "maps by location by decade" categories. Its super dumb to keep a whole way of categorizing maps that clearly doesn't work when there's other ways to do it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, the 1861-1865 ones are notably maps showing the Civil War. That period both had an unusual amount of maps produced (compare 1870s maps of Virginia!) and a large interest by editors who wished to upload those maps for articles. Then, there are lots of misclassifications: A map produced in 1880 showing a 1863 battle, is not a 1863 map. Anyway, most of these maps can still be broken down to the county level, just as proposed above. --Enyavar (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:1908 in Great Britain

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

 Support, as the content in Category:1908 in the United Kingdom can be diffused into England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales categories without having an intermediate Great Britain category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support The only subcat is now empty. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Could you also weigh in at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/04/Category:Books from Great Britain by year? Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Winter Hill

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

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

Category:SVG logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations

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

Category:SVG CBS station logos

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

Category:SVG NBC station logos

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

•  Oppose See my comment in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations. I'm not going to rewrite it here but organizing media by how companies are "affiliated" with each is problematic for a number of reasons. There really needs to be a CfD for Category:Companies by affiliation and/or Category:Categories by association instead. The later is particularly a problem. But I oppose creating Category:SVG logos of NBC affiliates in the interim. We don't categorize things based purely on how they are organized on Wikipedia's end anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG logos of local Fox television stations

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

Category:CBS station logos

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

•  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of CBS News local affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:NBC station logos

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Astros4477: Why add "News" to the name? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Because that is the name of the parent category - Category:CBS News local affiliates. It can certainly be debated there whether “News” should be included, but the logo category should mirror whatever it is.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose See my comment in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations. I'm not going to rewrite it here but organizing media by how companies are "affiliated" with each is problematic for a number of reasons. There really needs to be a CfD for Category:Companies by affiliation and/or Category:Categories by association instead. The later is particularly a problem. But I oppose creating any "affiliate" categories in the interim. We don't categorize things based purely on how they are organized on Wikipedia's end anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Logos of local Fox television stations

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

•  Oppose Technically this should probably be renamed to Category:Logos of Fox television channels to be in alignment with Category:Logos of television channels but "affiliates" is to anachronistic and ambiguous for organizing logos of television channels on Commons since category names should be extremely clear to avoid confusion. Yes, the channels are "affiliates" of the Fox Broadcasting Company, but it's more important to organize logos by subject. Not by some arbitrary corporate structure that has no actual bearing in the real world.

As a side to that, if you look at Category:Television network affiliates of the United States it's a sub-category of Category:Companies by affiliation which is ill-defined. It is also a subcategory of Category:Categories by association. Again, another ill-defined category that's a child of Category:Clubs and societies. Television stations are neither a club or society. Ergo, it would make zero sense to have images of television station logos in a subcategory of a subcategory of one for clubs. If it were me, I'd start a CfD for either Category:Companies by affiliation or Category:Categories by association, if not both. Since neither one makes sense. But this should be renamed to Category:Logos of Fox television channels so it's in alignment with the parent category in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I personally say stations or affiliates is the best choice, since they aren't technically channels. OWaunTon (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of Fox network affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:NBC station logos

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:CBS station logos

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations

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

•  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of ABC network affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:NBC station logos

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:CBS station logos

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations. --Astros4477 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose See my comment in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations. I'm not going to rewrite it here but organizing media by how companies are "affiliated" with each is problematic for a number of reasons. There really needs to be a CfD for Category:Companies by affiliation and/or Category:Categories by association instead. The later is particularly a problem. But I oppose creating any "affiliate" categories in the interim. We don't categorize things based purely on how they are organized on Wikipedia's end anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:NBC station logos

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

•  Comment I support moving away from the current name, but I think it would be better to align with the parent category of this category. I would propose moving to Logos of NBC network affiliates. Also, I am linking the other category for discussions that are relevant:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:CBS station logos

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local American Broadcasting Company stations.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose See my comment in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Logos of local Fox television stations. I'm not going to rewrite it here but organizing media by how companies are "affiliated" with each is problematic for a number of reasons. There really needs to be a CfD for Category:Companies by affiliation and/or Category:Categories by association instead. The later is particularly a problem. But I oppose creating any "affiliate" categories in the interim. We don't categorize things based purely on how they are organized on Wikipedia's end anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:PBS member stations

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

 Oppose This category aligns with a category on Wikipedia. I'd support creating a subcategory for logos, within this category. — WFinch (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with WFinch. Why move a non-logo category to a logo one? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:The CW logos

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

Category:SVG The CW logos

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

Category:MyNetworkTV logos

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

Category:SVG MyNetworkTV logos

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

Category:PBS member networks

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

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

Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists

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

 Comment without taking a stance either way on whether this is a useful Commons category, almost no one ever considers themself a "conspiracy theorist".

I'd say plenty of people on the right in Europe, and a fair number in the U.S., were in no way "conspiracy theorists" about this (and a fair number on the left were: I knew people who were sure the Trump administration had engineered this to destroy community, for some unspecified reason). FWIW, it didn't make someone a conspiracy theorist to hold the position (right or wrong) that children's education and socialization would suffer from quarantine more than public health would benefit, nor even about the (despicable) view that the weak and old should just die, or to in a Thatcherite "there is no such thing as society" opposition to public health programs. "Conspiracy theory" should mean things like a belief that this was a deliberately engineered epidemic, especially one targeted at particular ethnic groups, or that the number of deaths was wildly different in either direction than what was being reported, or that the vaccines were comparably dangerous to the illness, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. The question of whether people are or are not "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" is rather subjective. I don't think it's one which Commons needs to answer; let other more topic-focused projects like Wikipedia hash it out. Omphalographer (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Covid science denialism is a thoroughly-discussed and well-defined sub-topic of conspiracy theorism. There is nothing subject about this and there is no reason why this should be removed while every other subcat of Category:Conspiracy theorists gets to stay Trade (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I have a back ground in religious and conspiracy theory studies. Minor point, but there's a difference between "science denialism" and "conspiracy theorism." They aren't the same thing. These people can be, and probably are, "science deniers" or whatever. That doesn't mean they are necessarily conspiracy theorists though. Otherwise you could put the categories and files for every religious person that we have media for in the category simply because they have unorthodox views about COVID. That's a large part of the issue here. The category is to inclusive to be useful going by your own standards of who belongs in it. At least in the United States "Science deniers" are more then half the population. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep Only people with an encyclopedic assessment are of interest. The rest of the US population is not interested. Everything that interests is in the Wikipedia projects. Allforrous (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yet in the meantime you dumped a bunch of categories into this having to do with people who aren't knowing as "COVID-19 conspiracy theorists" just because they are politically right leaning and slightly skeptical of COVID. I still maintain that essentially every minor right wing celebrity who's had an opinion about COVID-19 in last 4 years is way to inclusive and subjective to be useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Does beliefs such as "COVID was created by the Jewish elite to thin the population", "COVID vaccines are a ploy to implent electronic microchips into the recipients" or "COVID vaccines were created by the Antichrist to mark Christians with the Mark of the Beast" fall under slight skepticism under according to you? Are Commons really not allowed to call a spade a spade? Trade (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd classify most of that under general vaccine skepticism, which there's already Category:Anti-vaccinationists for. Someone like Category:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is known for being generally against vaccines, not the COVID vaccine per se. He's certainly not primarily notable for spreading COVID-19 misinformation by any stretch. It needlessly convolutes things IMO to put categories for people who are anti-Zionist or generally against vaccines in specific categories for whatever the latest right conspiracy theory grift is at the time. Know one hopped on board the idea that Jews are trying to thin the population specifically because of COVID. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Temples in My Son

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

@Chainwit.: I think renaming it to Category:Buildings in My Son will fix the issue. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have recently also created category:My Son by structure for the identified structures. My question now would be which of the terms "building" vs "structure" be more suitable. (given most ruins in the complex may not considered "buildings"; ie intact with walls and ceilings. I'm not too proficient on these term definitions or whether one is a subset of the other. Please feel free to fix me on this note.) I would agree on changing it to Buildings/Structures in My Son; which IMO can encompass other modern buildings on the site (eg the shuttle bus station) as opposed to sculptures or nature scenes (eg file:Forest and river at My Son.jpg). -- Chainwit. (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I now think it would be better to use "structures" as instead of "buildings", as "structures" is broader than "buildings" and we can create "buildings" categories under "structures" when we have enough buildings. Note that ruins of buildings are often categorized with modern buildings, or sometimes as "ruins of buildings". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Yangmeiguzhen

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

Category:Interior del castillo de Montearagón

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

Category:Chaldean organizations

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

Category:Gualdrada

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

Category:Equestrian statue of Simón Bolívar (Buenos Aires)

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

Category:Chapati

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

The English Wikipedia has separate articles for the two, and roti (Q2204450) and chapati (Q752006) in Wikidata; I'm hesitant to go against that. Perhaps a "see also" link? Omphalographer (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: I have already mentioned that there are two separate articles in English Wikipedia. However, both articles call the other as alias. For example, roti starts with "Roti (also known as chapati)", and chapati starts with "Chapati, also known as roti,". Not only that, but maintaining the two categories on Indian flatbreads with almost the same meaning risks confusion even among Indians. So, I like to merge Category:Chapati to Category:Roti to avoid the confusion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Entonces habrá que hacer lo mismo en Wikipedias, no? 186.175.244.116 14:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should be, as I still can't see the difference between roti and chapati by reading the respective Wikipedia articles. But that's something to be done in Wikipedia. For now, we should merge the Commons category Category:Chapati to Category:Roti. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Office supply shops

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

@RadioKAOS: Happy to have a discussion on moving this to a more appropriate categorization. The distinction between "shops" and "stores" was/is not a standard, in fact Category:Stores redirects to Category:Shops, so I hope you can understand how a new editor to this space can be confused. For instance, Category:Shops by type is rather extensive and the vast majority (>60) use "shop" vs. a minority (17) use "store". Not sure why the obscenity is necessary here, but I'm happy to help address anyway I can. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to contribute so extensively to this site, you should also be willing to be a part of the community. There were a series of categorization-related discussions on COM:VP not that long ago. The sense of the community is that we should not be creating categories for only one or two files. The primary purpose of categories is navigation. Such categories hinder rather than help navigation. Without picking over every single thing, it appears to be a staggering number of categories created for some other reason than segregating content to enable effective navigation (19 of the 33 cats I tagged for this CFD consist of a single entry). Also, going over the respective trees, I see Category:Office supply shops in Texas, which doesn't include File:McKinney April 2017 028 (Enquirer Building).jpg (categorized in the other tree). Why are only chains categorized in this tree? It suggests that they're somehow buying exposure on this site, even if implicitly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I've uploaded thousands of photos to this site and added hundreds of articles to the English Wikipedia. I apologize for missing a COM:VP topic, but I think it's unfair to not assume good faith of me here. My intention was to assist categorization at the state level, not just the shop (store) type level. With dozens of images in categories like Category:Shops in California, this was my attempt at starting some more structure in that context. I think there are other categories that don't need to be so narrow, like Category:Interiors of office supply stores that can operate alongside these. And yes, I started with the chains because they were easier. It's not as easy as searching "office supply" to find all relevant stores in this context. Expecting one user to do it all is not really in the spirit of the community. And, I can definitely see your point, only doing chain stores can send the wrong message, and I don't mean to look like a big office supply shop shell, by any means. Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Church memorials

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Covered passageways

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

@Themightyquill: What if they can accommodate vehicles? - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... Currently, Category:Covered passageways is a sub-category of Category:Covered walkways, which suggests to me they are both for people, not vehicles. I guess that could be inverted, and Category:Covered passageways could be used to include both? But Category:Passageways is itself a subcategory of Category:Walkways, so that would need to be changed as well. I'm not totally sure of the usefulness of Category:Passageways. Aren't all roads (and even canals) examples of "uncovered passageways" that are open to vehicles? Merriam Webster says "a way that allows passage" and defines passage as "a way of exit or entrance : a road, path, channel, or course by which something passes" with the example sentences "Special ships clear passages through the ice." and "nasal passages." -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for those suggestions. That definition seems to imply that all content in the category passageways should probably be moved to other categories with a more specific scope.

Also, what is the difference between a covered walkway and an exterior corridor?

KaiKemmann (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Advertising by type

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

Category:Social instruction

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

Category:1886 establishments in Kansas

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

Category:Social advertising

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

In general: w:en:Marketing is a broader term/concept than w:en:Advertising. In this case:

• Category:Social advertising should only be about advertising.
• Category:Social marketing can also be about analysis, research, policies; campaigns about a subject of social interest can involve many more things than advertising, like websites, TV programs, flyers, leaflets and brochures.
• Both categories should at least be connected: Category:Social advertising should be a subcategory of Category:Social marketing. And Category:Social marketing is not only about health, so Category:Health promotion should not be a parent.

I think both categories should:

• get good descriptions, showing the differences
• be judged whether the subcategories and files comply with the descriptions; if necessary: move them from one to the other.

JopkeB (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Biodiversity park

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

Category:Oceans and seas

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

I've also created Category:World Ocean to cover the general aspect of "the ocean" or "the sea", with the categories Category:Oceans and Category:Seas being restricted to specific subdivisions of the World Ocean. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• I would say "Oceans" should be a sub category of "Seas" so we probably don't need this category or as noted it could be renamed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Putting Category:Oceans under Category:Seas is a better compromise, and also consistent with many Asian languages where an "ocean" is a "great sea" (মহাসাগর in Bengali, महासागर in Hindi, 大海 in Chinese/Japanese). Also, seas that are not oceans can be categorized under Category:Marginal seas (excluding Category:Sargasso Sea, which is not a marginal sea by definition). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Indian Ocean

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

Category:North Indian Ocean

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

Category:History of nature

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

 Keep it is different.

"natural history" is a sub-discipline of science or areas of knowledge in the natural sciences.

"History of nature" is not limited. History of all areas of nature. It affects the entire history of nature. In commons e.g. nature by year (past, present, future).

Greets -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 22:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep per above. For some reason the EN WP article makes it seem like this is about organisms while the German article finds it's also about environments themselves (not just as the environment of organisms) including mineralogy, partly geology, etc. Somebody knows more or should the ENWP article be edited? Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau by condition

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

This is a lifecycle metacat. Other useful children of this category (currently not used, but not implausible) are, for example:

• Proposed municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
• Abandoned municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
• Devastated municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau
• Merged municipalities of Landkreis Zwickau

Former is vague about its cause, it may make sense to split this, or create sub-categories below. For instance, a municipality may be former in the sense that it has been devastated (by mining or a natural accident) or in a political sense that it has lost its status to a new or another entity, either by a merger or, by public or parliament (vote) to switch state or districts, see for example de:Kreis Altenburg#Geschichte, last section.

I agree that it currently looks humble to have a single category as child, but its absolutely feasible for other peer categories to appear and express lifecycle different, in more specific or similar circumstances as the Former category does now in a general form. Cmuelle8 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This is quite a theoretical approach, quite far away from „real life“. Proposed muinicipalities is not a category to expect enough content to justify the category. Merged municipalities is not useful for commons either. This may be a good idea for a list article at wikipedia, but not as a category tree here. And abandoned and devastated is pure nonsense as far as municipalities are concerned. Villages and other places may be abandoned and/or devastated, but not municipalities. Municipalities get disolved or merged – but both cases do not justify this kind of category tree. Fine enough to collect them at Former municipalities of ... We shouldn't complicate commons with hypothetical and untypical intermediate metacats.  Delete --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:La Consolacion University Philippines

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

Also, it seems creating as a personal space and does not contributing some photos in en.wiki at all. Royiswariii Talk! 01:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Royiswariii categories for discussion is used to discuss the usefulness of the category itself, not of the files within. Kindly nominate files themselves that you feel contain unfree artworks and architectures. Thanks, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Keep, wrong venue, Royiswariii 😅 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it has an article on Wikipedia so it likely to be considered notable enough for a category here so unless all the files get deleted (which would be at deletion requests not here) then its likely we should keep this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Category list:

• Category:Sculptures in the round by Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Carl Bonnesen in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Herman Wilhelm Bissen in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Jens Adolf Jerichau (sculptor) in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Johan Tobias Sergel in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Johannes Wiedewelt in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Julio González in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Kai Nielsen in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Lauritz Jensen in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Niels Hansen Jacobsen in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Rasmus Bøgebjerg in Statens Museum for Kunst
• Category:Sculptures in the round by Walter Runeberg in Statens Museum for Kunst

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

Hi, I don't know what it means: "in the round" or "Sculptures in the round". Is it a room in Statens Museum? I never saw this kind of category. If there does not exist a worldwide parent category for 'Sculptures in the round' it seems a mistake to me to use it on a local level. Also: Thanks for the efforts to delete or redirect all those cats with "in the Statens Museum". This doubling is a source of irritation in many artists categories. Although I usually make a redirect out of them, I propose to delete all of them in the end, because it only causes confusion to have two options in tools like Cat-a-Lot, and Hotcat. But since this is not my terrain of choice, I feel that deleting these is not my job, plus it would need a special procedure with assistence by an admin to do it. So it can better be done in a request for mass deletion, once all of the files are moved to the right cats. Peli (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pelikana: English Wikipedia says that a sculpture in the round is a sculpture that is free-standing, as opposed to a relief or something that is mounted to a surface. Most sculpture categories I have seen have subcategories for busts, reliefs, and statues, but not "in the round".

I'll respond to your other comments on your talk page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Agree to this proposal. And thanks for your great work on managing all those categories. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps of Belize by year

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

@Broichmore, Adamant1, Omphalographer, Prototyperspective, Pi.1415926535, DarwIn, Enyavar, Jheald, LPfi, and Mike Peel: Another category by year debate. Copying the ping list from Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Maps of California by year. Nosferattus (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support. I was the one who upmerged most of Belize maps to their respective decades just based on the previous talks on the village pump; but given how there are a thousandfold more US maps around, I wanted to make the stand about "location before year" on the example of California before getting constant challenges. --Enyavar (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support per the arguments presented above.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support Per the reasons given. Organizing maps by decade makes a lot more sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)