Category:Statues of tortoises

although turtles and tortoises are not quite the same , it is difficult to make this differenciation in sculpture. My proposal would be to merge the tortoise branch to the turtles branch Category:Statues of turtles. best Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Support per nom. Enyavar (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki and Enyavar: If we're going to do that, wouldn't we want to merge at the "Turtles/Tortoises in art" level? I'm wondering why merge statues but not sculptures, or even the other media types that are duplicated (drawings, paintings, prints, etc.). Are you thinking to do away with the general tortoise categories, or leave them as subcats of the turtle categories? I'm just trying to understand what you have in mind. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: In Category:Statues of turtles 23 of 39 are tortoises, if the two concepts are similar / the same / different to keep apart (also for non-native speakers), we should have only one branch. If we keep turtles / tortoises apart, maybe the root cat should be Category:Statues of turtles and tortoises (for unclear cases) with Category:Statues of tortoises and Category:Statues of turtles as separate subcats. I'm not sure to go with my proposal. That's why it's a proposal. But anything that is structurally changed, should be applied from the root category "Turtles/Tortoises in art" downward. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Even years later I am still regularly confused by the distinctions of turtles and tortoises in English. This is a tortoise. This is a tortoise. This is a tortoise. This is a tortoise. This is a turtle. This is a turtle. Here is a turtle, and look, this one flies. Sometimes the categorizers can't even decide: This sculpture of a tortoise is a turtle in applied arts? Actually, no, it's a disfigured shrub.

According to the link by Herzi Pinki ([1] above), things seem to be easy: turtles are the ones that have paddle-like limbs for swimming while tortoises are the ones that walk on four legs. Which means, all my examples above are categorized in the exact wrong category. However, en:Turtles and en:Tortoises disagree with the link anyway: this turtle walks and is not a tortoise. Instead, the definition of "tortoise" depends on whether a speaker identifies with British, American or Australian English. The US website linked by Herzi Pinki for example, gives the reader a British English definition, apparently.

Our category tree places all tortoise artwork under Category:Testudinidae (which represents the American English definition). Meanwhile, the categorized content itself is mostly according on the British English definitions (if a turtle in art walks, it must be a tortoise). That is maximally confusing.

Commons is a global project for users of all languages, including quite a few languages that are neither subtype of English, and that often do not distinguish in quite the same way as English speakers, nor would many users fully understand the nuances of English that even native speakers cannot define in a universal way. That is probably why so much artwork is badly categorized under the current system. Additionally, much of that artwork doesn't even allow to properly determine the species of turtle anyway: it depicts the "turtle animal" that consists of a big round slow-moving shell with six weird limbs sticking out.

My suggestion is that we stop distinguishing between turtles and tortoises throughout the entire "art" tree (not just statues, as Auntof6 pointed out, rightly). The exception is artwork that unmistakably shows actual Testudinidae tortoises: those can be allowed under "Testudinidae in art", but not the ambiguous "Tortoises in art". There should also be a hat-note in the remaining turtle categories, to prevent well-meaning categorizers to re-create "tortoise" categories.

tl;dr ⇒ merge and redirect all "tortoise" categories into their "turtle" counterparts.

Best, --Enyavar (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I made this category by accident when I wanted to make Category:1775 flood in the Netherlands and it can be removed. Hobbema (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Mountains and hills in Salzburg

I propose to rename it to Category:Mountains in Salzburg, as for all siblings. On the abstract level we collect mountains here on Commons, there is not much sense to differ by unsharp and poorly defined classes of height. Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't fight for keeping the name of categories like this, but nevertheless I want to remark: Calling a small hill of 10 meter's height a mountain is not correct, for it's obviously different from a 2000s mountain. They are distinct from each other in the same way as a small chapel is from a cathedral. Thus, there are "chapels" categories beside "churches" categories (although it's often hard to decide whether a certain building is a chapel or a church). I admit, it doesn't make much sense creating "hills" categories, but why not keep categories like this one in question? They summarize all kinds of elevations better than only "mountains" would do. Combining churches and chapels is done by "religious buildings" categories, but is "mountains" a hypernym for both "mountains" and "hills"? Eweht (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your motivation. I understand your motivation, but don't feel much common sense and miss necessary abstraction as well as uniformity in cat name structure in it. Differing between hills and mountains needs to propagate up the category tree, otherwise you will find all the hills of Salzburg in Category:Mountains of Salzburg (state) by municipality -> Category:Mountains of Salzburg (state) -> Category:Mountains of Austria by state -> Category:Mountains of Austria -> Category:Mountains by country -> Category:Mountains by location -> Category:Mountains - no hills up the cat tree. You should start to contribute to Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/05/Category:Peaks in Pakistan, if you want to change that. See also best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Heimatmuseums

It seems to be a synonym of Category:Local museums in Germany (it is also a subcategory of), and - at least from the heading - a mixture with also non-Germany museums. It is non-english with english plural. I propose to merge it to Category:Local museums in Germany and delete this cat to avoid further entries. Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the content is a disaster. Still, disagree on a full deletion: "Heimatmuseum <town name>" implies something different than "Stadtmuseum" or "Ortsmuseum", and is a subcategory of "Heimat" which is wrong to apply to other local museums. Just an example, Fröndenberg/Ruhr has two local museums, one about the former industrial history of the town, and one Heimatmuseum about all other local history. I see plenty other local museums that are not "Heimat".

• Counter-proposal 1: Make it a definition that only museums that are explicitly named Heimatmuseum/Heimatstube/Heimathaus/etc may be included, and that they are required to additionally be categorized under "Local museums of Germany/Austria/Switzerland". In that turn, move "Heimatmuseums in Bavaria" towards "Local museums in Germany". Then start recategorizing as per the new definitions.
• Counter-proposal 2: Categorize them all under the local museums as per the original idea. "Heimatmuseums" (and/or "Heimatmuseum" without plural-s) are kept but as disambiguation category pointing towards "local museums of...", so that future editors are guided towards the correct category. That disambiguation would also be categorized under "Heimat", again to point users to the correct cat-tree.

Do you agree with one of the proposals? I'm not sure which I would prefer, so I detailed both. Enyavar (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Delete "Heimatmuseums" as the plural form is nonsense in the linguistic sense; it simply a totally incorrect plural form. Delete this category completely, no redirect and move all content to Category:Local museums in Germany. --Msb (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, linguistically problematic, maybe  Keep as singular? de:Heimatmuseum shows that this is a subgroup of local museums (distinct from de:Stadtmuseum (Category:City museums, just for example). Having more experience now, I see both of my proposals last year as not the best idea: Instead Move all Germany-related content that is name-related to "Heimat" (-museum/-haus/-stube)" to Category:Heimatmuseum in Germany (same for "in Switzerland/Austria"), move all other content to local museums. --Enyavar (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Does it make sense to combine German terms and English terms in this way? "Heimatmuseum in Germany" sounds strange. Also, I can't quite follow your reasoning that a "Heimatmuseum" is something different from what is called a "local museum" in English. Msb (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Each Heimatmuseum is a local museum, but not the other way around; and we have enough items here to make "Heimatmuseum" a reasonably large sub-category. Local museum is a much broader term, it comprises of anything local: a museum only about the local factory (Zigarrenfabrikmuseum, Industriemuseum) or even a local prison, like this castle/former prison: These are not about Heimat. Neither are Eulenspiegelmuseum (local legend) or Alamannenmuseum (local ancient tribe). The Heimatmuseum is usually located in smaller towns or villages, has displays of ordinary/folksy items collected from the region (instead of highly valuable objects), and has a tiny budget and no real theme/focus. Category:City museums are larger and usally also have more non-Heimat-related stuff. To distinguish one type of museum from the other, I really suggest just going by the names of the museum: Stadtmuseum, Heimatmuseum, Dorfmuseum; and anything else would be "local".

Also, there are plenty categories that mix languages, Maps of Landkreis.., Gravestone of Friedhof.. etc. But not in the same word, so I agree: no plural-S, please: Either "Heimatmuseum in Austria" or better, "Heimatmuseen in Austria". Best, --Enyavar (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Your examples of language mixes are not striking since they reuse nomina propria of subjects. Hence "Heimatmuseum" is of different value here. All in all, I support to retransfer them to the "Local museum"-category branch. Your hybrid solutions with some variations of the german word "heimatmuseum" is not a good solution in my opinion. It has great potential to create confusion and inconsistencies in the category system. Alternatively, could you create an article on Commons that addresses this? Msb (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Right, maybe we should wait for another opinion, since I don't exactly get why you object to my proposal here. "Article" on Commons? You mean, a better category description text? Or do you mean, post the question on the Village pump? --Enyavar (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld

On 29 February 2016 User:~riley moved Category:Files from bertknot Flickr stream to Category:Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld. Their edit summary said, simply, "Standardization".

I upload a lot of photos, but I am unaware of the standard ~riley implies exists.

~riley then deleted the redirect. I am going to admonish him or her for doing so. That was disruptive.

Some flickr contributors are prolific, and lots of WMF contributors have uploaded those free flickr images here. That is terrific!

Now, some of those flickr contributors have also made available their image on other sites, or have personally uploaded some of them here. For others, most I would guess, their flickr account is the only source of free images.

In my opinion, when some of a photographer's photos find their way here in some way other than twitter, then there should be a category like Category:Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld, and the category for their flickr images, Category:Files from bertknot Flickr stream in this particular case, should be a subcategory of that.

I think it is interesting, and possibly useful, to know whether a photographers photos came to us via flickr. I think it is interesting, and possibly useful, to know when a photographers photos came to us from both flickr and other sites, how many of them came from flickr.

No offense ~riley, but I wondered whether your assertion that you were following a standard isn't an instance of a phenomenon I have noticed. Us experienced contributors can entrench ourselves in strong opinions as to what does and does not make sense. It can be very tempting to jump from one's strong opinion as to what does or doesn't make sense, to thinking that one's opinion is so obviously correct there is no point asking fro other's opinions, to jumping to thinking that it is a "standard".

What we often find here is not one universally agreed upon standard, but rather contributors who focus on one particular topic will locally agree one a convention, and mistakenly THINK it is a unversally agreed upon standard, unaware that other good faith contributors, who focus on other topics, have adopted an incompatible standard over there.

Categories are a messy way to organize photos. I wish I had something better to suggeset. But I don't. What the crappiness of categories means is that we have to keep in mind they are a mess, and not blithely act like our own notions are a universally agreed upon standard. Geo Swan (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Geo Swam: for bringing this up. I share most of the concerns you share here. Personally I keep mind that categories are both a tool to organize the documentation, and a tool to supply those documents to the users and to inform them is the most effective and efficient way possible. The most effective way is to keep it as simple as possible. I my experience people generally don't know what Flickr is, so using that phrase complicates things.

If it was up to me, we would also not make this a hidden category but instead ad some general data about this guy. He has put on line 10 to 15 years ago his live time of amateur-photography of over 135.000 images, embracing the Creative Commons thought and offering them under the more open CC license.

I have been down this road before, being quite selective and upload small selective portions. And I guess I would have continued if not for the discussion you started here. You are quite right in this particular case it isn't the standard, yet. But it could be. A short introduction could stipulate the origin of the works. I hope this helps to make up your mind. Best regards. -- Mdd (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose "Photographs by Bert Knottenbeld" is perfectly fine. The purpose of categories isn't to store minor facts about a file or where it came from. And I don't think it's useful to know what specific website the images came from in this case. At least not in the name of the category. I assume that information is already included in the source and description though. At the end of the day we should have as many "Photographs by person X" categories as possible if for no reason then it helps us track copyright terms and basic biographical information about the photographer. That can't really be done in any sane way if photographs are being organized based on a Flickr user name. Although we could, and should, add a link to the photographers Flickr account to a Wikidata entry for them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:ММ-14 camouflage pattern of the Ukrainian military

Isn't this category redundant considering that MM-14 is an indigenous Ukrainian design and that no foreign users are apparent? Dvaderv2 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep this one. If anything, remove Category:MM-14 (which I'd support) and put this in its place.

Category:ММ-14 camouflage pattern with red tint of the Ukrainian military could then become a sub-cat of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You're both right to some degree in my opinion.

I think those categories should be merged into "MM-14 camouflage pattern". It's descriptive enough and not very cumbersome.--MatviiBohdanFediura (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bowls (kitchenware)

what're the differences between these three??

• Category:Bowls (drinking vessels)
• Category:Bowls (kitchenware)
• Category:Bowls (tableware) RZuo (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@RZuo: Good evening, I do not understand why this is not clear : 1 is for drinking, 2 is for cooking, 3 is for presenting and serving food. None for washing hands or feet... sincerely, --Bohème (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: number 3 is also very useful for keeping all these discusting food bowls away. Kindly, --Bohème (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And how can you see on a photo which category should be used? There are 387 files in Category:Bowls (vessel) which should be moved to probably one of these three. JopkeB (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

without clicking into the file pages,

where does each of these belong? why?--RZuo (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

2, 3, and 4: table because they are decorated. The rest can be used anywhere. Perhaps it is better to have subcategories by appearance, like color and material. How do you think about that? JopkeB (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Murals by country of location

Proposed up-merging the category to "Murals by country". I don't see the difference of by country and by country of location A1Cafel (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

OK JLVwiki (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Arms by family name

Arms by family name - not specific enough. Does it include French, German, Spanish heraldry? Duplicate of and better to use Category:Coats of arms of families of (... country), all well-established specific cats. There are 169 subcats in this category, whilst there are over 2,800 subcats in Category:Coats of arms of families of England and over 2,000 in Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, all listed alphabetically by family name.

It appears that Category:Arms by family name is designed for English/Scottish/Irish arms (i.e. broadly speaking British arms). We already have 3 categories covering this area, namely Category:Coats of arms of families of England, Category:Coats of arms of families of Scotland, Category:Coats of arms of families of Ireland.

The rules of heraldry are set by each nation, all with different styles and traditions, there is no such thing as "British heraldry". English heraldry is regulated by the College of Arms in London (under the English heralds) and Scottish heraldry is regulated by the Lord Lyon King of Arms in Edinburgh.

What about English families with French names? Are French families to be included too? The category would be too large if every family in the world is able to be included, regardless of the nation concerned. These two over-lapping cats are confusing.

It is not difficult to determine what nationality a coat of arms relates to (generally the nation in which the family came to prominence historically), and then to add it to the relevant nation's cat. There exist Category:Coats of arms of families of France, Category:Coats of arms of families of Germany, etc, for all of Europe. Arms can appear in two cats, for example Bentinck, a family which achieved prominence in three countries, Netherlands, England and Germany Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Condensing steam locomotives by country

OVERCAT Delete and upmerge to Category:Condensing steam locomotives. Not everything needs to be split by country and this is such a small group overall that it's merely adding layers of navigation to no purpose.

Likewise for Category:Steam motor locomotives by country Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

This is getting to be a huge expansion, and clearly one editor, 27.215.57.147 (talk · contribs), is out to split every sub-category down into a '... by country' tree. Even such as obscure things as Category:2-10-4 locomotives by country and Category:Streamlined steam motor locomotives by country that are well under SMALLCAT. Care to talk about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Steam locomotives with boxpok wheels by country This is getting ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Heraldic traditions

Nominate for deletion, too vague. Contents moved to Cats:Heraldry by religion & Heraldry by country Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lobsterthermidor: Please restore removed content so we can evaluate your proposal. Only remove content once the CfD is closed with a consensus to do so. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Oppose until contents restored so it can be evaluated. Josh (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Stone Distillery

Hmmm. This strikes me as a poor choice of names. Category:Stone Distillery, Toronto, or Category:Stone building in Toronto's Distillery District, or a whole bunch of other names would all be superior. The trouble with broad names like Category:Stone Distillery is that anyone who comes across a stone distillery, anywhere, could try this category name, and assume it was appropriate, without actually checking to see if there multiple locations with a stone distillery. Geo Swan (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Question @Geo Swan: Is the building, location, or company in question actually named "Stone Distillery", or is the term merely descriptive? If it is the proper name, then the category should be kept as is so long as we do not have media of another place with the same proper name. If not, then it should be renamed to reflect the actual building name (or street address). Josh (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• User:Joshbaumgartner - Well, I have lived half a kilometre away, for over thirty years, and I have never heard it called, simply, "Stone Distillery". No, this is not a definitive test.

Category:Stone building in Toronto's Distillery District remains my preferred name. That district has street names, now. But I don't believe they are the original street names, or street numbering, because the whole campus was private property, for a long time, including the streets and alleys.

Originally, it was owned by Gooderham and Wortz. If I am not mistaken, the building now houses a museum, on the lower floors, and commercial tenants on the upper floors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the descriptive rename you propose, as it doesn't sound like "Stone Distillery" is a proper name...there isn't exactly a sign on/by the building with "Stone Distillery" as far as I am aware. Since no opposition has been posted in almost a year, you should be good closing this and moving forward with the rename. Josh (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Luscinia megarhynchos (historical files)

"Historical" is nonsensical in this context. This category has been created simply to avoid having scans of "Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg" in the main category about the species. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Keep The item is from 1779, that's historical by any sense of the word. The category could also be used for historical (out-of-copyright) photos and suchlike that are eligible for Commons but of low demand among using wikipedias; it's a useful subcategory type used in many other taxon categories - MPF (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

When does historical end? 100 years ago? 50? Will you be moving all the images of the species of that age to his category? Since when do we categorise images or anything else according to "demand among using Wikipedias"? The only other category named "[taxon name] (historical files)" is Category:Medicago sativa (historical files), which is your own recent creation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of other subcategories have ill-defined or undefinable start- or end-points. Two options for defining 'historical' here, (a) historical is for files that are copyright-expired (with only a few exceptions [e.g. US-gov PD] a long gap to non-historical files starting with the creation of GNU and Creative Commons licensing), and (b) historical being for scanned material predating digital technology (less well defined by date, but actually gives a better break between generally low quality scans of printed material, and generally higher quality digital photos). There are lots of other categories named "[taxon name] (historical images)" and also "[place name] (historical images)". Currently Commons has very few historical non-image texts categorised by taxa, but that may change as more old scientific publications become available. - MPF (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Since when do we categorise, within subjects, by copyright status? Or by "born digital" status? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Categorisation is by whatever is most useful, so that similar items are grouped together. If someone wants to look specifically for a historical image, it is useful if they can all be gathered together in one subcategory, rather than interspersed among less similar files. - MPF (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@MPF: I agree with sorting material by age, but it is more useful if people actually know what age of material we are talking about. This is why categorization by century/decade/year (as appropriate for the topic) is far superior to subjective terms such 'old', 'historical', etc., as then users can instantly know exactly what age of material is covered by a category. Josh (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Comment @Pigsonthewing: I have added Category:Medicago sativa (historical files) to this discussion. Likewise, it should be deleted and replaced (if needed) by categorization by century/decade/year, as is standard for sorting material by age. Josh (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Delete Just about every file is historical, which makes it automatically subjective as to exactly how historical it has to be to count as historical. This is why we temporally categorize by year, which is not subjective. This cat should be deleted, and if sorting out material this old makes sense, place it in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos in the 18th century instead which would be much more clear about what age we are talking about. Josh (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: - that would make sense, if we had hundreds, or even dozens, of such files; at the moment, we don't. It makes better sense to gather all such files in one category while there are still very few of them, rather than have numerous tiny subcategories cluttering up the taxon main category. Can you think of category name that would cover all such, and would be as compact as 'historical'? Further subcategories can always be created in the future should the number of files to go in them increase substantially. Not that my thoughts matter anyway, given that I've been labelled as a disruptive editor and don't have much wish to continue editing as a result. - MPF (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is precisely one entry in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos (historical files). It makes sense to leave it in Category:Luscinia megarhynchos.

Where were you "labelled as a disruptive editor", and by whom? I told you "your removal of such files [including PDFs & audio] to inappropriate categories [ending in " (illustrations)"], apparently because you want to keep parent categories for images in 'demand among using wikipedias', is not 'correct', it is disruptive.". It is; and "disruptive" is an adjective you yourself have used to describe others' edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Charming. And to which named individual are you claiming that was aimed at?? How to p*ss off a long-established editor in one easy lesson. The antithesis of being kind. What is your reason for wanting to bully me off Commons? - MPF (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Natural History of the Nightingale - John Legg" is an article, which goes under "literature", which goes under ".. in art".

so if it's really necessary to create an extra layer for this single subcat, it should be "Luscinia megarhynchos in art" or "nightingales in art" first. this will go under Category:Birds in art by taxon. since nightingale is quite a popular theme in art, i think this subcat is ok and will fill up soon, even though its current contents might not be plenty.

"historical" should be mostly avoided.

@MPF, Pigsonthewing, and Joshbaumgartner: moving to "Luscinia megarhynchos in art", agree or disagree? RZuo (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: I am fine with that. Josh (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't believe that's how most people interpret - or use - our "in art" categories. Particluarly when the literature is scientific, or descriptive, rather than creative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing Category:Literature->Category:Literature by genre->Category:Non-fiction literature->Category:Scientific literature... happy? RZuo (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No, for the reason already stated. I also note that Category:Literature‎ is not a subcategory of Category:Art. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Good For You. RZuo (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Julto Pul Hanging Bridge

As "Julto Pul" means "Hanging Bridge", the name is tautologous, and should be just "Julto Pul", or "Julto Pul, Morbi" if disambiguatuon is needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

As the creator of this category, whatever is correct is fine with me. Thanks, Hmains (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. In a quick search couldn't find any other bridge called "Julto Pul". —Frodar (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

In the Gujarati article gu:ઝૂલતો પુલ, મોરબી, the bridge is titled as the "Julto Pul Morbi" (Morbi suspension bridge). Preferably, the category name should be translated and changed to English as the "Category:Morbi suspension bridge". The current category name as it stands, makes no sense. Multituberculata (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Rename Category:Julto Pul Hanging Bridge to Category:Morbi Suspension Bridge per comments of Multituberculata (talk · contribs) with proper noun capitalization. Josh (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Rename Category:Julto Pul Hanging Bridge to Category:Morbi Suspension Bridge for the aforementioned reasons. Multituberculata (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)