Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10

Category:Maps of the world about Wikimedia contents

many files in here are not about the contents but e.g. about the contributors or readers – please help move them to Category:Wikimedia maps of the world and create new subcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

no objection, this was created three years before your suggested replacement, and also before the current subcategories. Older doesn't mean better here. --Enyavar (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Demolitions

Duplicate of the parent category and it should be upmerged (including restructuring all the duplicate Demolition/Demolitions subcategories). Normally we have plural category names, but we can consider the term "Demolition" as the activity, so we can leave the parent category as is (see COM:CAT). P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials referencing years

There's no Category:Referencing. Nor does this whole "referencing by year" thing seem to exist outside of monuments and memorials. Plus a lot of these sub-categories are extremely under populated to begin with. Not to mention it isn't even clear what the difference between this and Category:Monuments and memorials by year is either. So I'm wondering if these whole category scheme should just be deleted. As I really don't see the point in it and there's no higher level category scheme to justify the thing anyways. Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a whole (quite extensive) tree in the subcat Category:Plaques referencing years. That category has existed here since 2007, so I suppose that this kind of categorisation is rather consensual. I developed the "Monuments" supercategory to cover items that aren't plaques – and these are common, though it only covers a small subset of related files. A better attitude would be to expand the category tree, not delete it :) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Plaques referencing years is a child category of this one and from what I can tell most of them only contain a few categories or images. So I'd hardly call them "extensive." I don't really see how that's an argument for or against keeping this anyway. And it's nothing to do with my "attitude." I've pointed out several reasons why this category structure is an issue and makes absolutely no sense. Just because someone created something in 2007 isn't a reason to keep doing categorizing things that way years later either. Again, especially considering the issues which you seem to be ignoring. I'm kind of interested in what you think the difference is between "Category:Monuments and memorials referencing years and Category:Monuments and memorials by year is though since your the one advocating for keeping the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If we have the year a monument was a created and the year of the event being commemorated, which one goes where?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the only one of those two that matters is the year of creation. Otherwise there's already categories for monuments and memorials having to do with specific events like WW1. Do we really need Category:Monuments and memorials of World War I referencing 1916? Probably not. Category:Monuments and memorials of World War I is perfectly fine. In the meantime from what I can tell most, or all, of the images and child categories here are for gravestones or memorials having to do with people. So what's being referenced is their year of birth and/death. Which is already covered by other categories. Either that or it's the date for something like a bridge, where the year being refenced is the date of complication and again, that's already covered by Category:Bridges by year of completion. So at least IMO having a specific category system for year of the event being commemorated is totally pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Flags with more than twenty stars

Seems pretty arbitrary and there are many more useful subcategories for direct categorization at Category:Flags by number of stars. I propose getting rid of this category and upmerging as necessary (many of these subcategories and files are already in appropriate and more useful categories). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess a parent category by range of values would be helpful. Some people just count 1,2,3,4,5,6,many.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wooden statues by Donatello in Italy

cascade of c: without items. Wooden sculptures by D. would suffice (If in the future a not-statue would be discovered in Not-Italy we would survive.)) MenkinAlRire (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep no we need this cat, and I do not see a "cascade without items“--Oursana (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

this c: is a subc: to Wooden statues by Donatello (empty) which is a subc to Wooden sculptures by Donatello (empty). That all sculptures are in Italy is expressed in the c:15th-ct wooden sculptures in Italy. A c: that only has another c: in it that has a c: in... is nonsense, like the Matryoshka dolls, and here it would be a bureaucratic principle ruling over common sense, and that may lead to kafkaesk structures. I don't think anyone wants this sort of tricky over-categorisations, where noone actually finds anything anymore, without keeping up with empty shells.

There are no wooden sculptures by Donatello outside Italy and it is not likely that there will be. All wooden sculptures are statues, so what? You could certainly remove both c:s above, instead of both subc:s.

You have to consider all the ways users will approach this, not only the logic in the creation of c:s. I often go with the c:artist and search from there. Donatello's c-tree is not that complicated, but already complicated enough (e.g. attributed works are a problem). If you only see a list of categories it is already abstract enough and you have to really know what you are searching for, because objects have often many names, some appear in a different language and so on. To come to this sort of stapled empty categories, as a user I feel like someone's pulling my leg, I feel fucked, really (it might just be the top of the frustration, I already have getting through this jungle).

At last, the differentiation of sculptures equally only makes sense, when there are also wooden reliefs or some distinguished busts, but there are none, and if a single wooden bust would be attr. to Donatello, the bust could have its specific subc:, without having the statues compromised. We don't need to make things more complicated as they show themselves. Sorry, this was a categorical speech (pun intended). MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Orthodoxy

I doubt the usefulness of this category. It seems to simply embrace religions that call themselves "orthodox", but I see no reason to believe that having "orthodox" in the name of your religion means anything much about whether or not you adhere to your beliefs (the meaning of the linked Wikidata item). Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Maybe we should change the scope of this category to cover other denominations or religious communities considered orthodox. For instance, Category:Sunni Islam is considered "orthodox Islam", as it adheres to correct or accepted beliefs related to Islam. Similarly, Category:Theravada is considered the orthodox school of Buddhism, Category:Sanatana Dharma the orthodox version of Hinduism, and so on (by the way, "sanātana", literally "ageless", is often used to mean "orthodox" in many Indo-Aryan languages). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: Certainly a step better, but I'm not sure I like the implication that (for example) Roman Catholicism or Shia Islam are heterodox, or that everything within a capital-O "Orthodox" Church is necessarily "orthodox." E.g. the Old Believers and the mainline Russian Orthodox each consider the other heterodox. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Re-purpose as a disambig page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Loves Monuments in Ukraine 2021 - Quantity

Anyone know what the word "quantity" is referring to here and/or what the purpose of it is? If not everything in this category should probably just be up-merged. Adamant1 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: it's a technical category for Wiki Loves Monuments organizers that denotes one of the nominations of the contest ("quantity" is the name of the nomination – it refers to awarding for the number of monuments pictured in the contest). The category serves a useful purpose and should be kept as is. AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@AntonProtsiuk (WMUA): Is there not a better way to keep track of it or at least a less ambiguous name for the category? At least from what I've seen from past CfDs and personal experience there's no consensus to have these types of personal, arbitrary maintenance categories. Especially in cases where the name of the category is so ambiguous that only the user who created it knows what it's for. Maybe something like "Wiki Loves Monuments maintenance category X" would work better. This seems like a normal category for images of monuments in Ukraine when that's not what it is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be one of two domains in the WLMUK contests uploaders have to choose when participating. This category (or the other) then gets added by the upload wizard.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: Yeah, I don't know. These personal maintenance categories are less then ideal. If there can't be similar maintenance categories for Wikiproject Postcards then I don't see why anyone else should be able to have them. Either personal maintenance categories are acceptable or they aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: I'd appreciate it if you left it open for now so other people can comment if they want to. Closing a CfD after a single day and two comments isn't great. Thinks. I still think the categories should be renamed to something clearer even if their kept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to hinder your retirement. All the best! And no, there wont be a subcategory "not a postcard".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not that it has anything to do with this, but I'm probably just going to cut back on this and work on other things. There's some stuff I'm in the middle of that I want to get done before stopping completely though. And I don't remember saying anywhere that there should be a "not a postcard" subcategory. So I have no clue what your talking about there or how it's relevant. Maybe stick to the topic if your going to comment though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You brought up postcards and announced your retirement. Thus the closure. The only postcard category of your I recall was called "not a postcard" (or similar), thus the mention. But apparently you say things that aren't necessarily relevant and we are supposed to guess if and how it is. In any case, happy retirement. All the best.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't bring up retiring in this discussion, you did. I didn't know that just because someone was retiring that every discussion they had anything to do with before then was suddenly null and void either. That said I'm more then happy to retract this if your that triggered by it. Some people go into rages about some odd things on here, but whatever. I don't want you to be upset over the mere existence of a CfD. So I'm totally willing to just call this good if we want. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wizard of Oz (franchise)

I have migrated all of the files that used to be hosted here to new subcategories couched under the Category:Oz (franchise) tag. As such there is no longer a need for this category. SDudley (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Negative

contains cats like "Criticism‎" and "Ends‎"; not useful but problematic, needs to get scope specified/changed Prototyperspective (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: I think this category is for negative aspects of something, like Category:Criticism, Category:Ends, Category:Restrictions‎, Category:Negative numbers‎, etc. Category:Criticism often covers negative aspects of a given topic; Category:Ends is considered negative, as opposed to Category:Beginnings; Category:Restrictions is also considered negative, as opposed to Category:Liberty; and Category:Negative numbers are obviously negative. See also: Category:Positive. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please see the nomination rationale. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd lean on the side of purging this category and replacing it with a disambiguation page. The current contents fall into two groups:

• Things which are described using the English word "negative": photographic negatives, negative numbers, negative space. There's no actual relation between these things, just a coincidence of language.
• Things which have negative connotations: criticism, asymmetry, restrictions. This is subjective and should not be used as the basis for a category.

Omphalographer (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective and Omphalographer: I have also tagged Category:Positive for the same reason. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that one's even more of a grab bag than "negative". Category:Positive organs is a particularly strange example; it means "a small, portable pipe organ that you sit down to play" and is completely unrelated to the concept of positivity. Support purging/disambiguating that one as well. Omphalographer (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with what you said in your two comments. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mass grave Frontovoe

пустая без возможного наполнения. Надо удалить kosun (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Indoor cycling

They arent all indoors. Perhaps it should be called Spinning (bicycle) Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I suggest it's kept and that instead your suggested category is added as a parent cat to it and all files which aren't indoors removed from this cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments

There seems to be a couple of issues with this category, and not that I know what to do about them, but I feel like they at least need to be discussed and/or clarified.

1. This is in Category:Monuments and memorials by subject, which happens to be a child of Category:Art by subject. Although a lot of "cultural heritage monuments" aren't art.

2. Per the description of Category:Monuments and memorials "imposing structure created to commemorate a person or event, or used for that purpose." Then just to go along with that the definition of a monument on Google is "a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." Although it also gives the definition of "a building, structure, or site that is of historical importance or interest." But it's pretty clear that by "monument" Commons is refer to the former, not the later. I. E. "structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event." The problem is that a lot of things in this category weren't created commemorate a person or event and categories are only suppose to be about a single subject and not be ambiguous in the meantime. So it seems wrong to have categories for "monuments", where said "monuments" don't actually fit the definition of the term for similar categories.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1:

1. Move Category:Monuments and memorials by subject from Category:Art by subject to Category:Architecture by subject, as we don't have Category:Structures by subject. Almost everything in Category:Cultural heritage monuments are works of art, as "works of art" are not just paintings, creative photos, and sculptures. There are architecturally significant buildings, which can be considered as "works of art".
2.  Support As you've pointed out, the term "monument" has two primary definitions; Category:Monuments and memorials uses the former definition, and Category:Cultural heritage monuments and Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) use the latter. However, as per the Selectivity Principle, "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." So, we should restrict Category:Monuments and memorials for structures to commemorate people or events (maybe rename to simply Category:Memorials, thus getting rid of the ambiguous term "monuments"). Therefore, Category:Cultural heritage monuments should be renamed to Category:Heritage structures, and the Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) programme should replace "Monuments" with something else (maybe "Heritage", as it often focus on heritage structures). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article monument says, "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. Examples of monuments include statues, (war) memorials, historical buildings, archaeological sites, and cultural assets." Even this article covers two different definitions, for which we should have separate categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: On the first thing, my main issue is with buildings that get designed as "Cultural heritage monuments" after the fact. I don't think this building is art just because the Ukraine government decided that it has historical importance. Although of course some architecture can be art, but everything in a sub-category of Category:Art has to be. You can't have a sub-category of Category:Art where only 1 out of 10 images or whatever are actually of art or artistic architecture.

Your suggestion to rename things sounds reasonable. "Wiki Loves Monuments" always sounded a little wrong to me anyway. Good luck getting them to change the name at this point though. But we can still rename things on our end to be better aligned with the guidelines even if they don't follow along. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On the first thing, my main issue is with buildings that get designed [sic] as "Cultural heritage monuments" after the fact. I don't think this building is art just because the Ukraine government decided that it has historical importance. Although of course some architecture can be art, but everything in a sub-category of Category:Art has to be. You can't have a sub-category of Category:Art where only 1 out of 10 images or whatever are actually of art or artistic architecture.

@Adamant1: Now things are getting into the more subjective level. TBH whether a piece of architecture is art often depend on personal taste. In Commons, we consider all pieces of architecture as art, since Category:Architecture itself belongs to both Category:Engineering and Category:Visual arts. So, the building you've shared is indeed a work of art, despite being too common to be considered an art in the personal level, as it is a house with a gable roof. It would be better if we have Category:Structures by subject, as it would be a better parent cat for Category:Monuments and memorials by subject than Category:Architecture by subject, since they are all structures after all. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I've created Category:Structures by subject and put Category:Monuments and memorials by subject under it, thus resolving any confusion regarding its relations to art and architecture. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor it but per Category:Art art is a "field of work focused on creating expressive work intended to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power. I wouldn't say specific buildings are a "field of work" or are "created with the intent to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power." Sure, some are but that goes for every product created by a human. Yet most categories for products aren't subcats of Category:Art. I agree with your suggestion to create Category:Structures by subject though. That mostly resolves things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Antony Blinken visit to Israel, November 2023

Secretary Blinken visited Israel twice in November 2023, this name is ambiguous A1Cafel (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@A1Cafel, so you are suggesting "Antony Blinken visits to Israel, November 2023"? -- Geagea (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably adding the exact date of Secretary Blinken visited Israel for the second time, i.e. Antony Blinken visit to Israel, November 29-30th 2023. This cat can be retain as a disambiguation category. --A1Cafel (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tony Hawk's (series) guest characters

Is this category even necessary? I don't think anyone in it is known for being in a Tony Hawk game. Let alone is it a defining trait of anyone in here. Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs at full length

There's got to be a better way to name these categories. This one isn't so bad, but sub-categories like "Category:20th-century black and white portrait photographs of standing women at full length in theatrical costumes" are totally ridiculous. Even more so if anyone tries to create sub-category of it based on the location or something. Category names aren't supposed to be full sentence descriptions of every single thing in the images anyway. So does anyone have a suggestion about how to better name these categories? Adamant1 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support - over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Information boards, plaques and signs in Kitzbühel

we have specific categories now Mateus2019 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cosplay of Jubilee, Scarlet Witch and Polaris

There is no need for an intersection category like this. Just put the image in three categories. Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support, as well as for the duos Category:Cosplay of Jubilee and Scarlet Witch, Category:Cosplay of Jubilee and Polaris, and Category:Cosplay of Scarlet Witch and Polaris. But this appears to be a pattern enforced by Category:Cosplay templates like {{Cosplay trio}}; this may need to be a larger discussion. Omphalographer (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Agência Senado

I suggest this category be moved to "Category:Files from Agência Senado Flickr stream" for standardization purposes. Generally, the format "Category:Photographs by xxx" is used to categorize photographs by a specific photographer, not from a Flickr stream. Examples I can recall include: Category:Files from Palácio do Planalto Flickr stream, Category:Files from Lula Oficial Flickr stream, Category:Photographs by Ricardo Stuckert, Category:Photographs by Cadu Gomes. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elisfkc, Tm, Entbert, MB-one, Enhancing999, and Minerva97: pinging those who have edited the category. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@MasterRus21thCentury, Guttitto, A1Cafel, and Snoowes: pinging those who have edited Files from Palácio do Planalto. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cosmo V, Botaurus, Sturm, and Erick Soares3: pinging those who have edited Photographs by Ricardo Stuckert. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Agree Since it is a Flickr source, I agree with the proposal. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see much value added by the proposal. It took forever to rename them to the current name. Besides it doesn't really matter if they transited through flickr or not. That Agencia is not an individual is clear from the name, even in English.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral MB-one (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to mention you moved it unilaterally without inviting anyone into the discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

This was moved after proper CfD. Please refrain from making such baseless accusations. If you persist, I will report you on COM:AN/U.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why exactly? What's the "baseless accusation"? RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Same as this Cfd--A1Cafel (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Official text of the Republic of China

What is the difference with Category:Official documents of the Republic of China?--125.230.83.110 14:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Latin letter combinations

A substantial portion of this category tree is made up of subcategories relating to types of railway wagons. For instance, Category:Seven Latin letter combinations‎ consists almost exclusively of subcategories like Category:UIC class Sdgmnss railway wagons, where "Sdgmnss" is a technical code describing a type of railway wagon. This is effectively just clutter; the UIC class codes are not prominent in most of the photos in these categories, and other categories already exist which specifically handle those codes (e.g. Category:UIC classes (flat list), so placing them in secondary categories based on the number of letters in those codes is not terribly useful.

I'd like to depopulate the UIC class code categories from the "N letter combinations" subcategories, and delete categories like Category:Nine Latin letter combinations which would become empty as a result. Does this seem like a reasonable cleanup?

Please note that I am not suggesting that this entire category tree be deleted. There's some marginal utility to it. But the subjects categorized should be limited to images which prominently feature a short combination of non-word letters, not every image with any kind of text in it. Omphalographer (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I created this category 13 years ago, apparently. I don't remember why, but my interests in Latin palaeography and ligatures probably were the reason, so I'm surprised to see so many other things included. Kenmayer (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Partially  Done - I've made changes to the {{UICclass}} template to stop automatically populating these categories, and I'll review a bit later once the changes have fully propagated. Omphalographer (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Men and women

What are the differences between Category:Men and women and Category:Men with women? If none, downmerge Category:Men and women to Category:Men with women, as the latter is consistent with categories like Category:Female humans with male humans and Category:Boys with girls. Note that Category:Boys and girls redirect to Category:Boys with girls. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Health by district

Superfluous intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Retrofuturism

needs to be split between modern retrofuturism and actual futurism of the past (>~70 years ago) Prototyperspective (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The history of imagining the future is different from later, deliberate evocation of that history. Also distinct from imagining a future that deliberately incorporates certain elements of the past; I mention that because Category:Steampunk is a subcat here, and it is really that last thing. It has little to do with actual past imaginings of the future, unless by "past" we now mean 30-50 years or so ago when the steampunk aesthetic began.

These distinctions are subtle, though, and I wonder how well we can get people to follow them. We may well want more "hat text" than usual for some categories in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 10:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Female humans' health

No content which is not already in Category:Women's health Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Women is plural for "woman". A woman is an adult female human. Before adulthood, a female child or adolescent is referred to as a girl. per Woman. Also an adult female person per this. an adult female human being per this an adult female human per this an adult female person. Compare man ( def 1 ), girl ( def 1 ). per this. Accuracy does matter here. Many files and categories relate not just to adult women's health but also and in some cases only to other human females' health. For example, genital mutilation is usually done before the female is a woman and thus has special characteristics such as the person having limited ability to prevent this getting done to them and various vaccinations are usually or only administered during childhood or infancy and various diseases also largely affect female children. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:  Weak keep. As Prototyperspective has pointed out, almost all English dictionaries define a "woman" as an "adult female human" and it does not include girls aged below 18. However, I'm aware that "women" as a topic may also cover various aspects of female humans in general, not just adult females. Unfortunately, the category Category:Women more often focuses on individual adult females than on women topics, for which I use Category:Female humans instead. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Category:Women's health -- and move all content into Category:Female humans' health. Obvious dupe. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep. I think there should be a {{Cat see also}} in Category:Women's health, if it is kept, to clarify that there is a general female-humans category too? Sinigh (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no cat see also links to categories that are direct parent categories. If there are two categories, then Female humans' health would be a cat set on Women's health and the user can go there. I have configured categories to show at the top so readily see them. Another option would be some sort of navigation template (for health cats) similar to e.g. those on the right of Category:People cycling. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Comment this category name is a clumsy phrase that I have literally never heard anyone use. "Women's health" is the normal term, and is usually extended to girls insofar as their health issues are at all gender-specific. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Females' health or Female health is a better term for colloquial use and could redirect there. Female health is a widely used term. As explained above with sources, Female health isn't only about women. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Prototyperspective: I agree with Prototyperspective here, as "female" and "male" adjectives are usually applied to humans unless there are animal topics for which such female/male dichotomy is needed. If there's a need to cover female animal health separately from male animals, we can use Category:Female human health (without the "clumsy" possessive, as "human" is originally a Latin adjective before being used as a noun in English). However, since I don't see the need, sticking with Category:Female health is the best approach for female humans. Note that I have !voted "weak keep", because (as Jmabel has pointed out) some "women" topics can be extended to include girls, which may render this category pointless. Still, accuracy matters per the Selectivity Principle. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be completely OK with "female health" or "women's health". - Jmabel ! talk 11:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You wont find "Female humans' health" in medical literature. The term used is womens health, regardless of age. Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion, mainly this. You may have wrong assumptions. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Palaces of justice

Upmerge to Category:Courthouses as "palace of justice" is just the literal translation of non-English terms for "courthouse". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:2 men

already exist Category:2 male humans GioviPen ^{GP msg} 11:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@GiovanniPen:  Keep Almost all English dictionaries define a "man" as an "adult male human" and it does not include boys aged below 18. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:2 male humans

as per Category:2 men, redundance GioviPen ^{GP msg} 11:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Male humans includes boys and babies, men do not. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@GiovanniPen and Prototyperspective:  Keep Almost all English dictionaries define a "man" as an "adult male human" and it does not include boys aged below 18. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Nations

Just a container of Commonwealth countries with no specific significance of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Nations as an organization. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, current or historical colonial affiliation implies a shared history of law and social services and regulatory traditions, including the health system. A similar containerization could make sense, for example, in some transport topics (traffic signs, side of traffic), etc.--ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Births by location

This category seems to for lists of random people and where they were born. Which is fine in theory, but is for images "of an organism releasing its offspring" and that's clearly not the purpose of this category or it's subcats. Per Commons:Categories "we should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category......The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous."

Another issue with this is that places of birth are usually meaningless trivia except in rare instances, but there's already Category:Birthplaces for locations where notable people were born. This category seems to just be a duplicate of that one at best though.

So my proposed solution would be to either completely axe this and it's subcategories outright or at least confine it to media related to actual births and remove the subcategories from ones for people. No one knows or cares that most or all of the people in Category:Births at sea were born at sea, I doubt it's a defining characteristic of any of the people either, and unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any images on here of actual births taking place at sea. So there's really no point in keeping the category. Category:Births in taxi looks like the one exception to that but I don't think a single image of a child being born in a taxi justifies the whole category system. @Omphalographer: and @RoyZuo: Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As the editor who started this discussion: My general feeling is that non-defining biographical facts, like dates or places of birth, don't belong in Commons. Displaying data sourced from Wikidata through templates like {{Wikidata Infobox}} is fine, but Commons should not be responsible for maintaining this data, or creating categories which index it. That's what Wikidata and Wikipedia are for. There's undoubtedly a lot of other category systems which fit the same pattern and which should probably be removed as well, but this is a starting point. Omphalographer (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It quickly became obvious that the editors who built these categories are using the Commons category structure to further the aims of Wikidata more than the aims of Commons. However, eliminating these categories will not cure a long-standing POV issue. In fact, it will only make it worse. See, before these categories existed, editors were using "People of" categories for the exact same purpose. When I discovered Category:Eminem some while back, he was only categorized according to his birthplace of St. Joseph, Missouri. This is an obvious problem, because in the public eye, he's almost universally associated with Detroit and nowhere else. One I didn't fix was Category:Jack Brooks. The only reason we have a category for Jack Brooks is because he spent 42 years in the U.S. House representing Beaumont, Texas. There's no categorization present which acknowledges this. Instead, he's only categorized according to the place in Louisiana where he happened to have been born. Even if Commons lacks an equivalent version of WP:CATDEFINING, the same principle applies: adding only birthplaces to these categories amounts to "trivial details" if those places have zero to do with the person's public life. We also need to get rid of "People of" categories if editors refuse to populate them properly.

It's not just a simple matter of inclusion and exclusion. Apparently, there are editors who believe that the "People of" tree should correspond only to data points found in Wikidata. I added Category:People of Chicago to File:Paul Harvey.jpg, which was later removed by Rhadamante after copying over categories from the file to Category:Paul Harvey. Tell me, what would you go by, the lack of any mention of Chicago in Wikidata, or credible sources such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ("Harvey composed his twice-daily news commentaries from a downtown Chicago office near Lake Michigan"), WGN ("Harvey moved to Chicago in the 1940s and originated his broadcasts from the city for more than five decades"), the Chicago Tribune ("She (his wife) is the one who persuaded him to come to Chicago in 1944 and try his hand at network radio") or the Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Following a medical discharge from the Army Air Corps in 1944, he shortened his name to Paul Harvey and began broadcasting for Chicago radio station WENR")? The quality of information on Wikidata is piss-poor and the quality of sourcing is even worse. Why should we capitulate to that simply to satisfy a small handful of Commons editors who are averse to the hard work needed to properly curate data?

Despite presenting these examples, you shouldn't get hung up on them, because the list of examples goes on and on and on and fucking on. The prevalence of such only causes the real world to view Commons as one more site populated by people with a detachment from reality. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think inevitably a lot of people are going to be associated with places, and distinguishing a birthplace (and, where relevant, a place of death) seems to me to be appropriate. In particular, I think it is very likely that a fair number of people go looking for images of people associated with the place where they themselves live. Again, we come back to the fact that categories ultimately exist to serve end users. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep I don’t see how or why this category is invalid; this is a container category for a bunch of subjective, valid subcategories. The main objection I’m seeing is “meaningless trivia”— as defined by who? Every single category is “meaningless trivia” to somebody! Also, User:RadioKAOS, what on Earth are you talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Meaningless trivia as far as it being a way for users to look for or organize media related to people. There is a point where these types of categories are to granular and not useful even if you want to claim otherwise. I'd say that's particular true in this case since there's already Category:Birthplaces for notable birthplaces to begin with. But let me throw out an example. There's a semi-well known tech entrepreneur who was born in a hospital in the same town where I'm currently living because their mother happened to go into labour while staying at hotel here one weekend. He's never actually lived or had anything else to do with here though outside of that though, and frankly I think it would be weird for a category related to him to be a child category of one for the town. No one knows or cares that he was born here. It's in no way notable what-so-ever. Ergo it's “meaningless trivia." but you'd apparently think that would be perfectly fine "just because" though.

Semi-related to that, but a lot of these categories are sub-categories of one's for "People of" categories. I wouldn't call most of these people "people of" the locations where they were born either. As it implies that we have media related to the person and said location. Which inherently isn't the case with most or all of these categories. I think it kind of follows that every sub-category of Category:Dili (city) should have images of Dili though. but if you look at Category:Fernando Sylvan which is a sub-category of Category:Births in Dili there's isn't any actual media of Dili in there. So I really don't see what the point is. Again, that's why it's meaningless trivia. Because you have a bunch of sub-categories for locations that contain no actual media of, or related to, said locations just because the person was born there. this image has absolutely nothing to do with Dili what-so-ever but it's still in a subcategory for Dili just because Fernando Sylvan happen to be born there. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:CH-NB-Photographs of the Grisons (canton of Switzerland)

seems to be mostly the same as Category:CH-NB-Graubünden (Kanton) in a different language
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Die Kategorie CH-NB-Graubünden enthält nicht nur Fotografien, sondern auch Druckgrafiken und Zeichnungen. Es sind keine identischen Kategorien. Swiss National Library (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Die eine ist eine Subkategorie der anderen. Die Fotografien sollten dann nicht auch in Category:CH-NB-Graubünden (Kanton) sein.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Structures by height

The point in categories is to help people organize media related to a specific subject. Not act as stores of trivial information that serves no practical purpose to categorizing images. To that end (most if not all) of these subcategories seem way to granular and trivial to be a meaningful way to categorize images of structures.

Just to give one example we have Category:5-meter-tall structures, which contains images of Category:George Henry Thomas Memorial. Is anyone seriously going to argue that people know about or care that the George Henry Thomas Memorial is 5-meters tall or that it's a defining characteristic of the statue (let alone one that even relates to images of it)?

Is there really that much a meaningful difference between a 5-meter and 6-meter tall statue that justifies them being in special categories for how tall they are? Not to say the height of a statue isn't an interesting fact, but it's just not one that IMO most people care about when looking for images of them. At least at the per meter level. There's also already infoboxes for storing that kind of information anyway.

There's also the side issue of how the subcats seem to have arbitrary start and end heights. Like Category:23-49-meter-tall structures. So I think in light of that the other issues that at the end of the day these categories should just be axed since they are totally arbitrary, to granular, and meaningless trivia in most (if not all) instances. @Omphalographer: and @RoyZuo: Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: There are some categories defined by height that should not be axed, like Category:High-rises, Category:Skyscrapers, Category:Supertalls, and Category:Megatalls, as they are useful for navigation. The only categories that does not seem useful to me are "x-meter-tall buildings/structures" categories, unless there is more than one building/structure with similar heights. Instead, I would prefer categories like Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings, despite seeming to have "arbitrary start and end heights", since people tend to categorize buildings and other structures by height ranges instead of exact heights. However, I don't like Category:0-22-meter-tall buildings and Category:23-49-meter-tall buildings categories as more arbitrary than Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings. Anyway, I prefer categorizing buildings/structures by height like this:

• 0-99-meter-tall-buildings/structures
  • 0-9-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 10-19-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 20-29-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 30-39-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 40-49-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 50-59-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 60-69-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 70-79-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 80-89-meter-tall buildings/structures
  • 90-99-meter-tall buildings/structures
• 100-199-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 200-299-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 300-399-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 400-499-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 500-599-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 600-699-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 700-799-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 800-899-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 900-999-meter-tall-buildings/structures
• 1000-1099-meter-tall-buildings/structures

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:High-rises should be axed, as it does not seem to have a commonly agreed definition. But Category:Skyscrapers should be kept, as it is nowadays usually defined as buildings taller than 100 or 150 metres. I would stick with the 100-metre definition, as it is consistent with my above proposal. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The present categories partly came from a previous discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2012/09/Category:High-rises, where I ended up replacing the Category:High-rises by height and Category:Skyscrapers by height categories. They originals were kind of useless and misused, because there's no single definition for high rises or skyscrapers. I ended up regretting it, because there are thousands of these kinds of categories, and even using scripts, it ends up as a mega-project. --ghouston (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nazi symbols status

" This category should be empty. Any content should be recategorised." But it isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks as though many, if not most, of these are being populated by {{Nazi symbol}} (via {{Nazi symbol/layout}}); the category name has been there since the template's inception in 2009, but the category was renamed a few days ago. Make a protected edit request on the layout template to get this fixed. Omphalographer (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Omphalographer and Rathfelder. My question is: what was the point of Category:Nazi symbols status in the first place and what's changed after the category was moved (pinging also Adinar0012). Something is similar with categories: Category:Communist symbols, Category:Symbols of communism and Category:Communist symbols status which needs to be fixed. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I dont know how to fix templates. Rathfelder (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Wikireality

What is this? Found with this report: Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Funds of the State Archives of Ternopil Oblast - Fund 37

what is this? please add categories. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What is this discussion? This bad name category. Correct category Category:Funds of State Archive of Ternopil Oblast - Fund 37. I remove files to correct category. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for solving this. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mexican insurgents

which insurgents? seems to miss files and is unclear and has no existing categories set. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:La lucha (advertisements)

please clarify what this is. has only one file so probably doesn't need a category. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Statistics about consumption in Australia

is this only about financial consumption / expenditures? it currently has no existing category set. found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Đại số 10

what is this? found via Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bulnes, Chile

Confused Paseo Bulnes in Santiago de Chile with Bulnes, a commune in Chile. Brunnaiz (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Videos by Terra X by language of subtitle files

@JimKillock: These categories seem to be redundant to a proper search query. For example, incategory:"Videos by Terra X" incategory:"Files with closed captioning in French" yields Category: Videos by Terra X with French subtitle file, but does not need additional maintenance. Maybe I’m missing some detail here? Ping Prototyperspective as creator of Videos by Terra X by language of subtitle files supercategory and a user currently maintaining this and its subcategories. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 08:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Keep If you use WMC a bit more you'll notice that countless categories are theoretically redundant because some advanced deepcatogory searches would also show their contents to a few expert users who thought of the respective concept. The use of these categories is that you can go to a place with more videos by Terra X with that subtitle language from the video by clicking the category link. It's also useful for people creating transcripts / subtitles. The search query is used to make sure these categories are complete and don't miss any files and this maintenance should also be done for lots of other categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women and education

 Rename to Category:Female education, as this topic covers female humans in general, not just women. For instance, Category:Female students can be either girls or women. Also consistent with Category:Male education. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense and the cat is mostly about girls, not women otherwise the redlinked cat could become a parent cat and the current cat be about things like lifelong-learning, adult job education, etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And also Category:Female educators, as they are generally women. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Black and white images of men

Category for only one AI-generated B&W image of a private detective. Most B&W images of men are photos, and the B&W images of men that are not photos can be categorized under the appropriate subcats of Category:Black and white images and Category:Men. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Lodged (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women in business

Mostly redundant to Category:Businesswomen, and Category:Female billionaires are not necessarily related to business. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women and comics

It has only one subcat, Category:Female characters in comics, which is not always related to women, as "women" refers to adult females and young girls are commonly depicted in comics. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait a minute, this category can be used to categorize Category:Female comics creators, but I'm not sure if "women and/in topic" categories are always useful for every single topics related to women/females. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 10:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Former countries

It's not really clear to me how useful this category is since most, if not, all of the subcategories in this aren't for countries, former or otherwise. For instance looking over Category:Former countries by name the subcategories seem to be a mix of former "empires", colonies, kingdoms, grand duchies', Etc. Etc. I guess the categories could just be removed, but it seems kind of pointless to keep this if it's only going to contain a couple of categories to begin with. As I'm not sure there's that many former countries anyway or that it's even a useful way to categorizes countries even if there is. So does anyone have an opinion about it or care if it's axed? Adamant1 (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand your argument. Besides being rather long-winded and rambling I don’t see how a category being cluttered with junk makes it invalid. “Former countries” is about as objective as they come it’s a country that doesn’t exist anymore. I see it’s mostly full of categories of the format “X thing as it relates to foreign countries”; that seems perfectly valid and appropriate to me. What are you even objecting to here? Dronebogus (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Like you've never written a multi-sentence paragraph before. Regardless, I'm objecting to the fact that the category is to subjective to be useful. I don't really see the point in the category if its just going to be used as a dump for random things that aren't countries. Category names aren't suppose to be ambigious. Although I'd agree the term "country" isn't ambigious in meaning per se it seems to be in this particular instance for some reason. Laural Lodged's response below being a good example of that. Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep An empire is a country, a kingdom is a country, a grand duchy can be a country. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

At that point a country is essentially any semi-organized border. I think the term has a certain modern connotation to it having to do with governed nations though that just doesn't apply when it comes to kingdoms and the like. No one calls places like the Kingdom of Algarve countries. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1, Dronebogus, and Laurel Lodged: The definition of "country" has been disputed since June last year on whether it only includes sovereign states or other non-sovereign entities, like Category:Dependent territories and Category:Constituent countries (link: Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/06/Category:Wales). Since the discussion has not been closed yet, I usually consider only sovereign states as countries in categories. So Category:Former countries should list at least the sovereign states that no longer exist. Adamant1 is right that Category:Kingdom of the Algarve should not be called a country as it was a part of the Category:Kingdom of Portugal, a sovereign state. Former kingdoms should be categorized under Category:Former kingdoms instead of Category:Former countries, unless the kingdom is also a sovereign state. I don't think colonies should be categorized under Category:Former countries, as they were administrative divisions of colonial empires. However, since we tend to categorize dependent territories with countries and many colonies of former empires have evolved into dependent territories, categorizing colonies and dependent territories under Category:Former countries may make sense. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Former colonies should be categorised as former colonies. I agree that "countries" should only include sovereign states, so that excludes the Algarve. It should probably also exclude the SSRs of the USSR like Category:Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. Some further thinking will be necessary for Category:Former countries by status and its children; I don't have an answer yet. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

“Former sovereign states”? Dronebogus (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I could support that suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Standing animals

We already have a consensus to follow "people activity" and "people posture" for activity and posture people categories respectively at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:People by posture. But there was no discussion regarding animal categories and subcategories. So I want to see if there's a consensus to follow this pattern in animal categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Terms like "standing" are inherently ambiguous when referring to a quadrupedal animal - it can be interpreted either as standing flat on four legs, or standing up on the hind legs. (Other postures like "sitting" or "lying down" are similarly ambiguous.) I don't know what the right solution is here, but I don't think copying the category structure from humans is it. Since it's so overwhelmingly common for quadrupeds to be photographed standing on four legs, I almost wonder if it might make sense to omit this category altogether and only categorize animals in other postures. Omphalographer (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Terms like "standing" are inherently ambiguous when referring to a quadrupedal animal - it can be interpreted either as standing flat on four legs, or standing up on the hind legs.

@Omphalographer: I think "standing" refers to both for quadrupeds. We can create Category:Animals standing on four legs and Category:Animals standing on hind legs to cover two types of standing for quadrupeds. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Hahn Hi-Boy

instead of creating a cat with 1 file and making it pollute e.g. cat "Agricultural machinery", cats like that should be deleted and the file moved. found via Commons:Report_UncategorizedCategories_with_only_infobox_categories Prototyperspective (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Thanks for this request. However, I do not know, how to link such a file via Wikidata to the article(s) with the same name (in various language Wikipedias) unless we create a category on Wikimedia Commons. I would even go so far, to say that a bot should create automatically categories on Wikimedia Commons of people, whose photographs are displayed by Wikidata. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Boris Romanovsky

There is an identical category about this artist - Category:Borys Romanowski Slider one (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

please add {{Category redirect}} to one of them.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:People with scarves

What should be the preferred word to use instead of X in "people X scarves"? Some categories are using "with" (e.g. Category:People with scarves, Category:Male humans with scarves, Category:Female humans with scarves), while many others are using "wearing" (e.g. Category:Men wearing scarves, Category:Women wearing scarves). I prefer "wearing", as scarves are something to wear, and many clothing categories are using this word. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Current ATR aircraft of Air North

We usually don't create categories with "current". It's either an aircraft or a destroyed/disassembled/retired aircraft. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes we do. There are over 800 such categories for airlines and has been for the last 7-8 years or more. Ardfern (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm with SBB on this. The assumption is that everything that is not current is in a "former" category while everything in the category is current. Manual re-categorisation is how this is achieved. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Before we had current and former all aircraft of a type and airline were listed as one long list (eg 147 Airbus A320 of EasyJet or 499 Boeing 737-800 of Ryanair), making it impossible to see what aircraft were current or no longer in use with the airline, which wasn't much use to anyone. Ardfern (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Talud

Can this category be renamed to Category:Embankments in the Netherlands? It looks like Category:Embankments is about the same subject, but I am not at all an expert on this subject. And I think the parents are not correct. JopkeB (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been changed to Category:Embankments in the Netherlands! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 13:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That might be a bit too early. There was a suggestion on Wikidata to ask these kind of question on ChatGPT, and the result was:

• "Talud" in Dutch refers to a slope or incline of the land, often found along roads, rivers, or dikes. It can describe any sloping surface, such as a natural hillside or a man-made structure like a dam.
• "Embankment" in English typically refers to a raised structure made of earth or other materials, built to hold back water or support a road, railway, or canal. An embankment often includes a slope but emphasizes the purpose of creating a barrier or supporting structure.

Key Differences:

• Talud focuses on the incline or slope itself, whether natural or artificial.
• Embankment usually refers to a man-made structure designed for a specific purpose (e.g., to prevent flooding or provide support), and it often includes a slope.

So my conclusion is that both categories should stay. Perhaps you can undo you actions (including the deletion request)? Then we might perhaps first discuss the outcome of ChatGPT. JopkeB (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been reversed what you asked for! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Antoine.01! I now suggest:

• Keep both.
• Add descriptions to both of them.
• Rename Category:Talud to Category:Taluds because category names should be in plural, at least in this case. Make sure the parent categories and Wikidata item are OK.
• Create Category:Taluds in the Netherlands and move files about the Netherlands to this category.
• Search for more files about taluds and copy them to one of these two (or, if necessary, create more subcategories).
• Keep Category:Embankments in the Netherlands as well, and search for more files that fit in.

What do you think? JopkeB (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

83 / 5.000

Hi JopkeB, I will see what is possible or if there are more categories on this topic!?! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean?

It is a good practice on Commons to wait until this discussion has been closed before we make any changes. Would you please be patient? There might be other people with other ideas. JopkeB (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought you were giving directions of what you expected me to do and I did that!? But if there are those who want it differently, I think that's fine! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 14:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, no, the only direction was to revert the edits, given on October 10. The rest are suggestions to be discussed, with you and others who want to join this discussion. So, please give your opinion about my suggestions. JopkeB (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Populated places on Lake Erie in New York (state)

categories like this should not be in categories about lakes like Category:Lake Erie in New York (state) – instead they should have share some parent cat further up about the region and maybe link to each other via cat see alsos Prototyperspective (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:1940 in India

Please fix the self-categorization introduced here. Found via Commons:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed that. Pakistan didn't exist yet in 1940, so this seems purely disruptive. However, I would rename all pre-independence categories as "British India" or "Pre-independence India". Yann (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective and Yann: See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Coats of Langen family (Westphalia)

Bitte umbennenen in: Coats of arms of Langen family (Westphalia). Sorry GerritR (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Human geography

This needs cleanup including cat removals/moves and more specific cats: cats as broad and unacademic like Category:Fields shouldn't be subcats of Category:Academic disciplines by topic. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with a complete reorganization of the categories.--Ciaurlec (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Instrumental music

Please clarify whether it's merely (fully defined by) "music without spoken or sung language" or whether there are more conditions like it extensively featuring musical instruments instead of only/mostly noninstrument electronic music. I think the latter is the case but the categeorization currently does not match that and Category:Instrumental music videos is in cat Category:Music videos by language. It needs categorization changes (e.g. via new subcategories). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:M. Ward taken with Canon EOS 100D

Feels overly specific. If we had to create intersection categories between people and cameras, we'd explode the number of categories. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

agree. Same for other subcategories of Category:Taken with Canon EOS 100D.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Musical music from Incompetech

Category with one file (moved to Category:Unclassifiable music from Incompetech). 2603:7000:B800:F04:C403:C3AE:16A4:FE99 22:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Darkcluemusic

Category description pages for the following seems to be the same:

• Category:darkclue
• Category:Dark Clue
• Category:darkcluemusic
• Category:Dark Clue Music
• Category:dcmplayer
• Category:DCM Player

This can probably be reduced to 3 or fewer categories.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I condensed it a bit. Seems somewhat spammy.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:War memorials abroad

Country cat names like "war memorials of X located outside X" are too long, when we can shorten this name to "X-ian war memorials abroad" without causing ambiguity, like Category:Indian culture abroad. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

We can also rename them to simply "war memorials of X", with "war memorials in X" and "war memorials of X in Y" (where Y is another country) as subcats. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:People sitting while urinating

none of the cats exist and it has cat "People people urinating while urinating". Clean up such messed up cats pls. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: revised on 28 January 2024 and caused the mess. Having cleaned up the mess, ready to withdraw this case, please?--Jusjih (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, withdrawn, thanks. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Red Lion pubs in Manchester

There seems to only be 1 pub in the metropolitan district of Manchester and I have created a category on it Category:Red Lion, Manchester but if there are others it could be moved to Category:Red Lion, Withington. While we normally sub divide by city I'm not sure its a good idea when it comes down to buildings by name unless there are many otherwise by county namely Category:Red Lion pubs in Greater Manchester is sufficent. This should be deleted or redirected to the only one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:1793 works in the United Kingdom

There was no United Kingdom in 1793. It was established in 1801 Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Category:1793 works in Great Britain would seem the best solution, together with all the other 1790s categories. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, and all the other UK categories before 1801. Rathfelder (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:ⵉⵔⵏ

I removed a series of self-categorizations from this and some of the subcategories, but all categories lack English descriptions and the entire structure appears to be circular.

Title	Page ID	Namespace	Size (bytes)	Last change
ⵉⴱⵔⵉⵔ	141486700	14	249	20241010230840
ⵢⵏⵏⴰⵢⵔ	141487137	14	255	20241010230824
ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ	141487215	14	249	20241010230514
ⵎⴰⵕⵚ	141487243	14	243	20241010230836
ⵢⵓⵏⵢⵓ	141487341	14	249	20241010230843
ⵢⵓⵍⵢⵓⵣ	141487397	14	255	20241010230847
ⵎⴰⵢⵢⵓ	141487434	14	249	20241010230851
ⵖⵓⵛⵜ	141487484	14	243	20241010230854
ⵛⵓⵜⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ	141487501	14	267	20241010230858
ⴽⵟⵓⴱⵕ	141487543	14	249	20241010230902
ⵏⵓⵡⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ	141487647	14	267	20241010230906
ⴰⵢⵢⵓⵔ	141488443	14	374	20231127181046
ⴷⵓⵊⴰⵏⴱⵉⵔ	141488594	14	267	20241010230910
ⵉⵔⵏ	141488632	14	403	20241010225006
ⴰⴽⵓⴷ	141488648	14	374	20231127181353
ⴰⵙⴰⴽⵓⴷ	141488651	14	426	20231127181555

Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ appears to be the only one containing a file. I'd rename this to Category:ⴱⵕⴰⵢⵕ (text)] and delete all other ones.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Works in the United Kingdom by year

The United Kingdom did not exist until 1801. Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Md Mofizur Rahaman

Category Md Mofizur Rahaman was created by Commons user Mofizur Rahaman! All the image files are unused pics of Mofizur Rahaman. This is a Commons category that is being used as a Wikipedia BLP written by the subject, along with references and external links. FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The question is if he is notable enough or not.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999@FeralOink

Md Mofizur Rahaman is an Editor and Cinematographer.

proof

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm16599869/

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q130373885

https://www.themoviedb.org/person/4971621-md-mofizur-rahaman

https://filmfreeway.com/MdMofizurRahaman

https://www.omdb.org/en/us/person/309734-md-mofizur-rahaman 103.166.59.63 15:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

 Delete all. Blatant self-promotion. Commons is neither your personal free web host nor a vehicle to promote your career. en:Draft:Md Mofizur Rahaman has been rejected 4 times. --Achim55 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really, the category description is perfectly reasonable. Notable people are welcome to upload images of themselves to Commons (or even write articles about themselves on German Wikipedia). That an article is rejected on enwiki doesn't really matter. Not entirely convinced though if the threshold of notability is reached.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Commons is not a place for Wikipedia type articles. Also, who says he is notable?! Everyone whose self-authored BLP articles get rejected from Wikipedia should not recreate them on Commons.--FeralOink (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a Wikipedia type article. Which page are you talking about?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the Category for this person. Please see my initial proposal for discussion above. It resembles a stub article on Wikipedia. Also, since when have "notable people" been "welcome to upload images of themselves to Commons"? If people are welcome to write self authored BLPs on German Wikipedia, that may be a more appropriate place for this person.--FeralOink (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The text doesn't really go beyond what is expected on a category page. Also, including references is desirable if there is no Wikipedia article on the topic. Fixing formatting doesn't require deletion.

I think the answer to your other question is likely since inception. How did you get the opposite idea?
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh great; he has added another EIGHT photos of himself. He made himself an infobox and everything. That looks like an ersatz Wikipedia article to me. Achim55's points are all valid.--FeralOink (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rosy McMichael

empty category 2A02:810B:581:C300:D871:768A:48C8:79 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Guacaneme family

Empty category 2A02:810B:581:C300:D871:768A:48C8:79 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Train stations in Switzerland photographed in 2021

There is a question if the redirect should be removed or not.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Imho, this category, which exists in several countries, is interesting as it allows a search on buildings. 2021 in rail transport in Switzerland will lead you to subcategories about trains when Train stations in Switzerland photographed in 2021 is more about train stations as buildings as it's a daughter category of Buildings in Switzerland photographed in 2021 which has a lot of daughter categories about different types of buildings (churches, museums, houses, mosques etc.). Birdie (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 Strong support --Lukas Beck (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms of Mühlen family

Bitte zwecks besserer Spezifizierung vereinigen mit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_of_M%C3%BChlen_family_(Vogtland) - es könnte noch weitere Familien mit dem Namen geben GerritR (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:2 men with other organisms

I wonder why this would be useful. I don't think even just 2 humans with other organisms would be a variable that is reasonable to categorize by. Humans with other organisms would be a reasonable cat but I doubt this one is. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:4 clothed children with 2 clothed men

I wonder why this would be useful. I don't think even just a 4 clothed children with other people would be variables that are reasonable to categorize by. Children with men would maybe be a reasonable cat but I doubt this one is. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Water activities

Probably best merged with Category:Activities relating to water Prototyperspective (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ligature "THE"

What is this? Uncategorized. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

THEre's an example in the single image in the category. I don't know enough about historical typography to say whether this is something that's common enough to be worth categorizing or if it's a one-off bit of weirdness. Omphalographer (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)