What is this category about? Is it about some specific program in Belgium, about the broad topic suggested by its name, or what? To add appropriate parent categories, we need to know. Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The category is based on the UNESCO list of safeguarding intangible cultural heritage

https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists

It is not specific for Belgium.

Living heritage is the most go-to term for intangible cultural heritage. SofieVera (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SofieVera: why isn't the category simply called "Intangible cultural heritage"? - Jmabel ! talk 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we already have Category:Intangible cultural heritage. How is this different? - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact quite different. Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (ICH) / living heritage is the action of perserving and keeping alive the ICH, while intangible cultural heritage is a broad definition of the practices itself. Safeguarding could also be for example filming and distributing the ICH, gathering funds, etc. while practicing the ICH itself is often only the event or the craftsmanship itself.

“Safeguarding” means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage." (https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/05770-EN.ppt) (Powerpoint)

Also important to note: in the angelsaxon world the term ICH is less used and people tend to use living heritage more. Worldwide the term ICH is more used. Do you think it is possible to make alternative titles for this category? SofieVera (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category for Hunter Biden's second wife is under her original name. Since Ms Buhle, Hunter Biden's first wife, returned to her maiden name, after the divorce, should we rename this category, for consistency? Her memoir, her biggest claim to notability, is published under Kathleen Buhle... Geo Swan (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think (but not confidently enough to add parent categories) that "Prakalp" here is just "project", and this is some sort of Wikimedia event or organization at University of Solapur. Is that correct, and can someone explain the nature of the event or organization? Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that this should have a more specific name. "Community projects" is awfully broad. With no parent categories, I can't really even guess the intended breadth of scope of this category, which looks like it takes in two Spanish-language Wikimedia events in Argentina and none elsewhere (but is that an intended limitation? or just that things haven't been placed in this vaguely-named category?). Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Agreed. Whether the limitation is intentional or not, it is the current case, so renaming as Category:Community projects of Wikimedia Argentina in 2023 as a sub of Category:Community projects of Wikimedia Argentina would be more clear about the contents and satisfy the Universality Principle , Modularity Principle  and Hierarchic Principle . Josh (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that, and the user who created the category has not weighed in. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nearly an empty cat with probably many thousands of images on WMC within its scope that probably would be better to inverse to "Full cloud cover" Prototyperspective (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category If there were some structure and interest in categorizing sky images by the level of cloud cover, I'd say keep, but besides the specific Category:Overcast, this category is a lone bit with only one image, so I'd say delete for now, unless someone really wants to start sorting sky images by level of cloud cover. Josh (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sahodaran Ayyappan Memorial at Cherayi Vinayaraj and Category:Sahodaran Ayyappan Memorial at Cherayi overlap in content. Neither has any topical parent categories. Should they be merged? If not, what is the difference between the two? And, in any case, these should get topical categories at least for location, and probably for the nature of what these portray. Jmabel ! talk 05:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see part of what's going on: the former is a user category, which is fine, but it should be more clearly named (something like Category:Sahodaran Ayyappan Memorial at Cherayi (photos by Vinayaraj)). The latter still presumably needs topical parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melstar72: What do you mean with "Illuminated address"? Is that the title of something or a type of communication? Please add relevant categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminated address apparently are a kind of successors to Category:Illuminated manuscripts. They were created to commemorate persons or achievements (source). As such, the category could go in Category:Commemorative objects and Category:Illuminated manuscripts. The name should be Illuminated addresses, though, because category names are supposed to be in plural. --rimshot^talk 13:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

remove as redundant Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a redirect and all redirects are kind of redundant by their nature, so redundancy alone doesn't make for a very good reason to delete a redirect. However I get why this doesn't seem a very useful redirect given the similarity in name to the target, so I am fine with either delete or keep in this case. Josh (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should be merged with Category:Endurance sports Prototyperspective (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance Sports should probably be a subcategory of Aerobic Exercise. One can exercise without competing. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively.

It's about endurance exercises but more broadly not about specific exercises but the sport. Moving it to "endurance exercises" may be something to consider but I don't think that would be a good idea: it's broader than that; one can do different kinds of jogging (e.g. short or long) or cycling exercises (e.g. uphill, short or long) but it's still the same sport (here jogging or cycling). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>"Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively.

Yes it does. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not, it doesn't. Sport pertains to any form of physical activity or game, often competitive and organized, that aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators […] There are opposing views on the necessity of competition as a defining element of a sport, with almost all professional sports involving competition. You could say it usually does. Skiing or bodybuilding are sports even when you don't do it competitively. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're probably still distinct enough concepts and warrant separate categories. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another  Question: What about a link (parent-subcat) with Category:Aerobics? Reading EN-WP article and seeing EN-WP category I think Category:Aerobic exercise should be a parent category of many subcategories, of which Category:Aerobics should be one. But I do not see a link with Category:Endurance sports because aerobic exercise is not necessarily about endurance. For me endurance sports is about long distances, like marathons and triathlon‎s, see EN-WP for more examples. I think both Commons categories (Aerobic exercise and Endurance sports) need some reorganization. And I  Agree: "Sports" does not imply that it is done competitively. --JopkeB (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes that category was missing there and I just added it.
• Endurance sport is somewhat a misnomer, it's not really necessarily about long endurance and the better term would be e.g. cardio exercise/sport but it's rarely used that way noncolloquially. Doing an exercise for >1 minute is already endurance sport so in some sense it's still correct but it's an inappropriate emphasis on endurance if the exercise/activity doesn't go on for e.g. >20 minutes (or long distances if you move during it). The issue is that Aerobic exercise and Endurance sports are actually the same, each just highlighting a different aspect of the same thing(s)...it's characteristic for Endurance sports that they're Aerobic. Maybe it's too difficult to resolve this issue here and Aerobic exercise may be slightly broader in that it could encompass warm-up exercises. The issue is that these can also be part of or represent endurance exercise so I still think it would be better to have one unified category for both synonymous concepts.

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation.

• In that case I prefer that the category name will stay that is most clear and the least misleading for the majority of people. For me that is Category:Aerobic exercise.
• Shouldn't there be a category for sports that are about long distances and/or heavy exertion? Perhaps rename the current Category:Endurance sports to Category:Endurance games, like in the EN-WP?

JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many images of non-notable individuals (I have listed some individually but probably should be bundled into this nom), numerous "unknown starlets". unlikely to be of encyclopedic value or satisfy COM:EDUSE in any case. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category, should just be in parent category Category:Bryn Pryor's Corruption Party. Note: Do not delete image in the category without deletion requests - many images labeled as "unknown starlets" can be seen be things like "Sophie Dee (actress with articles in more than 20 languages) with unknown starlet", and presumably even images without a person identified by name may be useful illustrations of the event. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make the subcategories more standardized. Some of them are called "Sessha and Massha of X shrine" in various capitalizations. I think we should harmonize the names of the subcategories a bit. Maybe either rename it to Category:Sessha and Massha or rename the categories to "Setsumatsusha of X Shrine". My understanding is that they are effectively one thing now, and we do not need to distinguish between the two. Although Sessha have a link to the main shrine deity, and Massha are unlinked deities enshrined at the shrine due to often widespread popularity. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional categories to work on this for. Pardon the ridiculous size.

Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only recently created the category, but the subcategories were in existence for a very long time. Independently created for each of these 64 shrines without any coordination about common naming. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saigen Jiro and @Aiaiaiaiaia seem to have made the bulk of these categories Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clusternote you recently linked Category:Keidai-sha in Setsumatsusha. Do you think it should be merged with this one Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: the intention of the {{See also category}} on that page is not the proposal of merge, but the indication of another classification axis {Keidai-sha, Keigai-sha};
Note: By the combination of that pair and the {Sessha, Massha} pair, logically every media could be potentially categorized into four sub-categories, i.e. {Keidai-Sessha, Keidai-Massha, Keigai-Sessha, Keigai-Massha}. Practically, however, it may be hard to categorize every media into these four, in my opinion. Clusternote (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clusternote I do not know what Keidai-sha and Keigai-sha are. How does the axis of categorization work? If the distinction is as hard to do as Sessha and Massha then it might be worth merging all 4 into one category. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: Sorry for my late response. I think that any media possibly sub-categorized to above four could be categorized under the generic-category Setsumatsusha (or Sessha and Massha). Several media about Keidai-sha can be found by keyword search "境内社", and Keigai-sha by "境外社", so I've categorized that pair earlier. On the other hand, the distinction of Sessha (摂社) / Massha (末社) may be hard task because it may possibly need the verification of reliable sources (for verifying the merging history of shrines, we need not only the official information (ex. jinja-net.jp and JinjaHoncho) but also the local history materials), and the sub-categorzation of above four sub-categories may be farther hard. --Clusternote (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. I think "Setsumatsusha of" is better than "Sessha and massha of". The latter is only appropriate when the shrine has both, and if it only has massha, it should be "Massha of", but it's often hard to tell which is the case. Whether each setsumatsusha is a sessha or massha is largely determined by the shrine's own tradition, but it's not always evident from the official website. Aiaiaiaiaia (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

category is overly descriptive and won't be further populated; if it is a brand, let us properly identify  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one file, no subcategories, no parents. My proposal: move the file to other appropriate categories and delete this category. JopkeB (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. This category has only one file, no subcategories, no parents.
2. The file already has one good other parent category.
3. This category won't be further populated.
4. Proposal:
   1. Give the file other parent categories for an army field oven in the logistics teaching collection - Logistics School of the Bundeswehr.
   2. Ask for deletion of this category.

@Billinghurst: Do you agree? If there are no objections on 2024-06-16 then I'll close this discussion an implement the proposal. --JopkeB (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB @Billinghurst  Keep. This is a specific model of military equipment, and the category name is the official name/designation of it. For aircraft, vehicles, weapons, military equipment, and such it is fine to have a category for a specific model even if there is only one image currently hosted. This includes cases where there is only likely to ever be one image, such as rare models or prototypes from long ago which no longer have a surviving example. In this case, since there is at least one surviving example on public display, I wouldn't assume we will never add more images in the future. I get that field kitchens aren't as popularly published as fighter jets and main battle tanks, but that's no reason not to keep it...I would argue it even is more valuable since it is no doubt harder to find for researchers than pics of an F-16 or T-72. Josh (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: As I said, if it is a "brand" then let us proprerly identify. Sitting in "field kitchens", with the name as is, doesn't seem like a specific make and model. Fixing it up with resulting categorisation would be helpful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst What do you mean by 'brand'? Military equipment isn't generally branded like commercial products (there are certainly exceptions). Exactly how much more specific do you expect this one to get? Josh (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Was solely thinking manufacturer. Something for us ignorant English speakers to know/identify that this is a specific model (pick your noun) rather than a literal name. I'm not up with the military categorisation, so happy to let the standard be followed, and simply identifying that this it is manufactured under the name.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst Got it. Manufacturers for military equipment aren't always relevant. For aircraft they can be commonly included, and some military designation schemes do include the manufacturer, but for most things and systems, they are not. A lot of equipment is manufacturer-agnostic, meaning that many companies may be contracted to manufacture the item, and through much of history, items such as weaponry and ships were commonly made by the military or government themselves, and so including a manufacturer name isn't really appropriate for things like Panzerkampfwagen IV or M47 Patton. Obviously, if the manufacturer is commonly included in the designation/name, then it can make sense to have it there, such as with the 100 mm Schneider-Creusot M1917/24. In the case of the nominated category, including the manufacturer name, if indeed it even has a specific one, would not really be of assistance, since it would be incongruent with how that equipment is commonly referred to. Josh (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB There are now 3 photographs in the category. Josh (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me that is enough to keep it. But perhaps:

• The category should be renamed to English: Field oven on chassis 2-wheel 1.5t?
• We need a second parent?

@Joshbaumgartner and Billinghurst: Agree? Do you know a better category name and/or a second parent? JopkeB (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB Additional relevant parent categories are great, and I should think they hardly need a CfD unless someone takes issue with them (I've added a couple more but feel free to do so as well, or find better ones than what I found).

The category should remain in German, exactly as designated by the German military, for the same reason we don't translate Category:Panzerkampfwagen IV to "Tank IV" or "Armored Combat Vehicle IV" or whatever other translation for Panzerkampfwagen might exist. Josh (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Joshbaumgartner: for adding more parent categories. Stange exception for the name, though. Shouldn't the category name be extended with "(Deutschland)" or "(Germany)"? It could easily be about Austria or Switzerland as well, also German speaking countries. And now you only know it because of one parent you added. JopkeB (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB I'm a bit confused...the category isn't really about Germany. It is a piece of equipment that happens to be part of the German military, but it need not be exclusive to it. A lot of equipment serves in multiple militaries. We don't use Panzerkampfwagen IV (Germany) or M47 Patton (United States), we just use Panzerkampfwagen IV and M47 Patton. The only case where we would add (Germany) or (Austria) dab info to the name is if there were identically named but different equipment designated by the different countries. This is rare, though not unheard of, so we should not add the dab by default.

I don't think that keeping the name in German is a strange exception. We don't generally translate proper names that don't have either an official or commonly used English translation. Josh (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Josh, thanks for the explanation.

New conclusions:

1. The category should be kept. It has now three files, that is enough for a category.
2. It now has good parents. It is not about a brand, but German for Field oven on chassis 2-wheel 1.5t, so it does not need a parent for a brand.
3. The category should not be renamed, it has a correct name.

@Billinghurst and Joshbaumgartner: Do you agree? If yes, then this discussion can be closed. JopkeB (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB Agreed. If someone knows the manufacturer for this equipment, it can be added as a parent category at that point of course, I only added the parents I felt confident with. Thanks for the summation. Josh (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All files in this category is already properly categorized, I don't think this "maintenance" category is useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know what the purpose or usefulness of having "present-day" in the names of these categories is? If not, then I think I'll get rid of the phrase and just name them "x whatever in Occitanie" instead. It seems like a needlessly convoluted way to name the categories though. There also seems to be a lot of over-categorization along with it that should probably be dealt with, but that's secondary to the naming and I'll probably leave it to someone else to deal with. But I'd like to at least get rid of "present-day" if no one disagrees. Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion of "present day" phrase. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support removal of "present-day" from this and sub-cats. Josh (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Get rid of the "present day" phrase AND get rid of over-categorization as well. --JopkeB (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this about Category:Occitania, the region or Category:Occitanie, the much smaller administrative district? --rimshot^talk 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Following the parent categories upwards, it is Category:Occitanie, which seems to be a subcategory of Category:Occitania. JopkeB (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'puddle iron' ? This is not a term commonly used in the literature, and it seems to be a duplicate of either wrought iron or cast iron (Some items listed here are cast iron, but the puddling process makes wrought iron). Either way, this is a duplication we do not need. Delete cat and merge back to whichever pre-existing category is appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This type of decarburized cast iron was used, in particular by Gustave Eiffel, so that its constructions are lighter than cast iron and can better resist the force of the wind by flexibility. This type of metal is neither cast iron nor wrought iron ! It seems to me that given the existing constructions a particular category deserves to be preserved ! I was in contact recently with a Breton engineer who lives like me in Rennes, correspondent of the descendants of Eiffel in Brittany who indicated that the constructions of Eiffel were "fer puddlé" in french and not cast iron or wrought iron. This engineer also provided me with photos (in wikimedia commons) of a Breton lighthouse (Moguériec lighthouse) built by Gustave Eiffel and which was renovated by crowdfunding in 2022-2023. Couldn’t the name of the category please become "malleable iron". Please excuse me for translating "fer puddlé" into "puddle iron". Cordially GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several questions here: Is puddle iron distinct from wrought iron? Is it distinct from wrought iron produced by puddling (rather than the earlier process) and does this matter, given that we're looking at objects made from it here, rather than its metallurgy in particular? Why is cast iron getting included here at all?

We also have questions of improvement, such as how to link puddle iron to an article on en:WP which explains what it is. Because you seem to be claiming here that WP just doesn't mention it at all, which seems peculiar. fr:fer puddlé just redirects to fr:Puddlage, which is the French equivalent to the process article at puddling, not to some distinct type of iron.

'Malleable iron' is a problem as a definition because there are several meanings for that. Usually as improved cast irons, but wrought iron is still more malleable than any cast iron is. If this is why cast iron is getting mixed in here, that's very wrong.

I think these categories on Commons should be converted to their wrought iron equivalents (because puddle iron is wrought iron) and any cast iron should be removed. If we can state that 'Gustave Eiffel used a particular grade of wrought iron, produced by a particular process' then we should state that and expand WP to state that too. Eiffel is known in the UK for building his tower as the last great construction in wrought iron, at much the same time that the Forth Bridge was being built as the first equally great construction in steel. But I'm unconvinced that Eiffel's puddled iron was any different from any other wrought iron being produced at the same time, and certainly not to the point that we should distinguish here on Commons, for bridges built from it rather than wrought iron. For instance, were any other contemporary French engineers using wrought-iron-that-was-not-puddled-iron? I believe that this is simply a terminology difference for the same material. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to answer your question about the nature of the "fer puddlé" used by Eiffel, it is not possible to say precisely what type of iron Gustave Eiffel used (from the "Société des hauts fourneaux et aciéries de Pompey"). During the restoration of the lighthouse of Moguériec near Rennes, specialists in metallurgy of the University of Rennes came to take metal samples on the old shaft of the lighthouse for analysis. Should I please wait for other contributors to comment on this topic before editing anything ? Cordially. GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, a concrete proposal. Merge and/or rename all of these categories under Category:Puddle iron, including the parent, to Category:Wrought iron, as appropriate. Remove any content that isn't wrought iron (i.e. cast iron or steel). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, following your request I tried to make the requested changes correctlyǃ I hope this corresponds to your wishes and that I have not forgotten anything! As it has a banner placed on the main category: "Puddle iron", I will leave it to you to correct this page as it seems to you! Having made all the "infobox/wikidata" sheets of the headlights produced by Eiffel, by coherence, I kept the mention "fer puddlé" at the field level: material. I leave it to you to correct the wikidata sheet Q2642947 as you wishǃ With all my thanks. Cordially GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @GOUPILLEAU J-Y: Hi, and thanks for trying to take care of this. Unfortunately, it appears that you have left empty categories behind (see Category:Puddle iron). I do not know what sub-categories puddle iron had, so I am unable to check them. Instead of leaving an empty category behind, please either make it a redirect to the correct category or use {{SD}} or {{Bad name}} to have it deleted. Also, once a consensus is reached in a discussion such as this, please close the discussion per the process at Commons:Categories for discussion so the logs can be cleaned up. If you are having any issues with these steps, feel free to ping an experienced user such as Andy or myself for assistance. Thanks! Josh (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your reply. I am not at the origin of the opening of this discussion and I thought it was better for Andy Dingley to close it! In the previous message I sent to him, I indicated that I hoped to have corrected the links in accordance with his request, ie: no distinction between "fer puddlé" (puddled iron) and "fer forgé" (wrought iron) and updated the categories and linked pages accordingly => wrought iron bridges and wrought iron lighthouses, under the wrought iron category. Is this discussion closed so that I can continue cleaning up ? Thank you in advance for your answer. Sincerely GOUPILLEAU J-Y (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mounir Neddi: Why did you remove Category:Communes Documentation Project - Supported by Wikimedia Morocco here? Prototyperspective (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prototyperspective

Oued nfifikh is a river, not a commune Mounir Neddi (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add another relevant category then? Maybe the cat should be deleted and the files be moved to a new Category:Oued nfifikh? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a subcat of Category:Communes Documentation Project (Mellila commune) so that seems fine. This is not a topical category, so the files can stay here as part of the project category, but should also have correct topical categories added. Perhaps one specific to this waterway as suggested by Prototyperspective or at least somewhere under Rivers of Morocco or such. Josh (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baron de An-Phuoc or An Phước Nam (安福男) refers to Mandarin Vi Văn Định. As no other holders of this title have been found, it is recommended that this category be deleted, the documents moved to the category of "Vi Văn Định", and information on "An Phước Nam (安福男)" added to that category. 源義信 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@源義信: Isn't it still a title independent of the holder, even if no other holder ever existed? I understand that the reasoning is that the person and the position are synonymous, but the concept of the title and person who held the title are still separate. It's like if a shop only ever occupied a single building, the shop and the building are still separate from each other as other shops had and will occupy the building. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung I think your point makes sense. In my opinion, it's not necessary to create these types of category for every one, as I have not seen two or more people of the Nguyen Dynasty with a title of the same name. Regarding this kind of categories which has relevant documents (like File:6cts entrepot ptt.jpg), I am currently tending to  Keep. I have moved the "Vi Văn Định" category so that it becomes a sub-category of this category (instead of the other way round). 源義信 (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

源義信, the thing is, when I found that envelope 📨⃤ I didn't know who this baron was, all I found was the coat of arms (including the traditional Chinese seal) and that it was issued by this baron. As far as I knew, it could be a company named after the title. Later I did some research into the aristocratic titles of the Nguyễn Dynasty and found that noble titles are transmissible to the eldest son of the nobleman, with a decrease of one degree with each successive generation. As far as I could find there aren't that many special privileges granted to nobles other than the ability to use their title, wear a custom Kim Bài (金牌) and get a custom titular seal. As the Nguyễn Dynasty fell in 1945 most former aristocrats stopped using their titles, but not much is written about the aristocrats that I could find online. From what I can tell, usually these titles were given as "pension gifts" to retiring mandarins and French government officials alongside a stipend.
Anyhow, thank you for identifying the man behind the title as the only reference I even found to this title was this envelope 📨 on a website that didn't even cover the issuer of the envelope, only the postal services that handled it.
We tend to have categories for recipients of various medals and awards, but I'm not sure if the Vietnamese and Chinese nobility structures are well suited for such a similar system. But as this category actually has documents specifically referring to the title and not the owner it makes sense in this specific instance to exist. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're on the topic anyhow, I haven't come across that many personal coats of arms of the Nguyễn Dynasty other than those of the Emperor (which is usually just the national coat of arms but with the Emperor's reign era name on it instead of the quốc hiệu (國號, "national name").), the sole exception being this one and that of Empress Nam Phương. I'm sure that if you found any other examples that you would've uploaded them already, but I just found it interesting that this coat of arms also used a crown typically found on the coat of arms or a French baron, indicating a certain "Gallicisation" of Nguyễn Dynasty culture in this regard, even if it had already been long antiquated in France itself. Curiously enough, there seems to be little references to nobility in Chinese and Vietnamese history in general, this is probably because the Confucian system valued meritocracy over nepotism, but under French influence it might have been possible for a number of noble(wo)men to emulate European prestige, which is why we saw these documents arise, hence why I was able to make a category for this title without knowing who the owner of the title was. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can take a look at Category:Noble titles of the Nguyễn Dynasty. The work is coming to an end. What I'm working on now is the categories of local gov't officials , such as Tong-doc, tuan-phu, bo-chinh-su, an-sat-su, tri-phu, tri-huyen... Then I am also going to work on the Four Column (Tứ trụ triều đình/朝廷四柱, the four Đại-học-sĩ), the Tam công (三公: 太師、太傅、太保、少師、少傅、少保) and the Tam Cô (三孤: 太子太師, 太子太傅, 太子太保, 太子少師, 太子少傅, 太子少保). 源義信 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

源義信, wow, amazing work. Thanks for mapping those all out. 😄😄😄 — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the title of this could be improved. If it is a proper noun, then "Square" should be capitalized. However, I find little basis for this English-language name other than it being a near-literal translation of the Serbian "Трг од ћирилице" ("Trg od ćirilice"). Jmabel ! talk 06:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turbine_houses and Category:Turbine halls for me seem to describe the same concept. Just eventually on different scales and separating the facets of outer and inner views. I propose to merge these categories and the corresponding Wikidata items as well. Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep both, scale does matter. And it looks like the halls are only about the inside, while the houses are about inside and outside. I suggest to make a better category structure, so that they are better connected. JopkeB (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2409:8A3C:1C2E:A700:E19C:88A4:C015:B124 (talk · contribs) started a series of "xx era". this is not a good use of commons category tree and all should be deleted, because:

1. such "eras" are not precisely defined.
2. to group "categories of a place in a certain period" together as a certain person's era is simply overemphasising one person.
3. there're tens of thousands of celebrities or historical figures. are we gonna create similarly ill-defined categories for these people's eras? obama era? marilyn monroe era? shinzo abe era? putin era?
4. they simply mess up the cat tree by introducing weird loops from person to period to everything in a country in that period, leading to overly broad cat trees under these persons' categories. RZuo (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

all the cats to be deleted:

1. Category:Zhang Zuolin era
2. Category:Feng Guozhang era
3. Category:Xu Shichang era
4. Category:Sun Yat-sen era
5. Category:Li Yuanhong era
6. Category:Yuan Shikai era
7. Category:Chiang Kai-shek era
8. Category:Hua Guofeng era
9. Category:Xi Jinping era
10. Category:Hu Jintao era
11. Category:Deng Xiaoping era
12. Category:Jiang Zemin era
13. Category:Mao Zedong era

RZuo (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have categories that refer to Japanese emperors (Meiji, Taisho, Showa, Heisei, Reiwa) and those are defined by specific dates, but using to to refer to Chinese politicians feels weird. I could see a use case for Chinese emperors and the eras of other monarchs, but not for politicians, be they authoritarian or democratic. Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

an era name is a formal word chosen by royals. it's an entirely different concept. RZuo (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dab. @RZuo, @Abzeronow, we continue to see the problems with using alternative methods of categorizing by time other than the universal objective system of day-month-year-decade-century-millennium. I'm not denying that 'eras' can have significance within a given context, but they just end up adding extra layers of navigation both horizontally and vertically. They also add confusion where they overlap or are ill-defined and points of contention when their definition is not universally accepted. I recognize that an era name may be a start point for some users' searches, so I can see utility to these being a dab. For example:

• Category:Yuan Shikai era
  • The Yuan Shikai era refers to a period in Chinese history from 1912 to 1916, during which Yuan Shikai served as the Great President of the Republic of China, and so Category:Yuan Shikai era may refer to:
    • Category:China in the 1910s
    • Category:1912 in China
    • Category:1913 in China
    • Category:1914 in China
    • Category:1915 in China
    • Category:1916 in China
  • {{Disambiguation}}

This way people can still find things relevant to the era without it clogging up or complicating the time-based categorization trees. Josh (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Yuan+Shikai+era%22

no one is using these terms other than these cats. RZuo (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a terribly narrow thing to have broken down by U.S. state. The fact that almost none of the parent categories exist underlines that. Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So those images originated at Category:Men wearing blue jeans which still has almost 800 images as of this writing. (It was well over 1000 when I started.) Are you going to return these images to an ancestor category that needs diffusion? Also someone actually found the category useful approximately one hour before you started this discussion which is evidence that there are still photos out there that include men wearing blue jeans who happen to be located in Washington State at the time of photographing. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Seems useless to me, but if you find it worth your while, go for it. But please do create the parent categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you propose that attire-related categories be diffused? For example, Category:Men wearing sunglasses has 2338 images as of this writing despite the fact that it was diffused to "Category:Men wearing sunglasses by country" and "Category:Men wearing sunglasses in the United States" years ago. And blue jeans can't be worn as many different ways as sunglasses can. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd have diffused them. I am trying (and failing) to find the use case for the end user that this helps. Yes, I'm sure that without diffusion Category:Men wearing blue jeans is large, but if someone is looking for an image of a man wearing blue jeans, it is actually harder to click into state-by-state categories than to scroll through a monolith, and I can't really imagine the person who is looking specifically for an image of a man wearing blue jeans in a particular U.S. state. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Diffusing files by some property (location, year, whatever) only makes sense where that property has some visible impact on the image, e.g. images of landscapes, buildings, etc. It doesn't make sense for images of things like clothing which will look about the same no matter where they happen to be taken. Omphalographer (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A case can be made that how a given type or style of clothing is worn in different geographic areas can be a useful point of study in the field, so there may be a reason to associate a type of clothing with the place it was photographed in. Josh (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a duplicate of Category:Power grids. The electrical grid article says that electrical (or power) grids and networks are synonymous. Should they be merged? Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the files in this category contains an image of a copyrighted symbol. 192.38.90.21 09:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/succession-of-the-throne#download-official-portraits-and-the-royal-crown, the royal danish crown can only be used by The Royal House of Denmark, state institutions and the companies that hold the Royal Warrant. 192.38.90.21 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'use' mean though? We have a similar restriction in the UK, but it applies to businesses using it for promotional purposes, to imply that the company carries some form of Royal Warrant. It is not a copyright issue, and it would not restrict my ability (as an artist or photographer) to reproduce this symbol in connection with an organisation that does have a legitimate warrant to use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rename it to Category:Iki-jinja (Nagasaki) to contrast with Category:Iki-jinja (Fukuoka) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting deletion, but wanting clarification of what this category represents. Am I correct that this is not a category for photographs, but for simulated photographs? In that case, we should have hat text stating that, and I don't think Category:Digital photography should be a parent category. Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this term is more clearly understood with "AI generated photography." "Generative" photography is a misnomer (the photography is the result of a generative process, the photograph itself is not generative). In either case, digital photography seems like an appropriate parent to me, as generated images are the result of a digital process. But, I am not firmly committed to either outcome. Just wanted to elucidate my thoughts as the category creator! Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the two proposed changes by Jmabel. Since those aren't photographs it shouldn't have this category. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this inherently subjective category. "Realistic" is in the eye of the beholder. This is no more appropriate than a category about "really good pictures" or whatever. Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Inaccurate paleoart; for images made involving AI tools I thought it would be best if inaccuracy is assumed and the default so I went for this rather than "Inaccurate/unrealistic…".

I thought having a way to separate for example the images on the left from those on the right that aim or achieve to be realistic depictions would be useful (and possibly needed so that one assume inaccuracy if the cat is missing and easily find images that are more realistic or unrealistic). I don't care what happens to the cat if people don't see usefulness in this distinction but I think this distinction is adequate and useful in some shape or form that it's implemented. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you're trying to get at - these generated images aren't stylized; they look like photos, not artwork. Perhaps "photorealistic" would be a more suitable term? Omphalographer (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving things into a photorealistic cat and some into some kind of Category:Anthropomorphic animals type of category may be a good thing to do. However, the two upper images on the right are still the kind of images aiming to depict animals as they really look like but aren't photorealistic, maybe anybody has further ideas what to do about such? Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Anthropomorphic" means something different. In the context of animals, it specifically means artwork which depicts an animal with unrealistically humanoid characteristics (e.g. animals walking naturally on two legs, having humanlike hands and faces, wearing clothing, engaging in typical human activities, etc). It's a description of the content of the image, not its art style, making it entirely orthogonal to photorealism. Omphalographer (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote "some kind of…type of category" there. I didn't know another term or cat about that but I remembered / found again the category Category:Animals acting as humans in art so maybe that's the appropriate phrasing. There's still an issue with that in that wearing humanoid clothing is not necessarily "acting" and that many of these images depict anthropomorphic animals.

making it entirely orthogonal to photorealism Exactly, I suggested as one possible approach to have the category inversed to rather categorize the images not in the realistic animals cats into cats including and/or like the "animals acting as humans" subcats.

I thought it was obvious so I didn't make that clear. An issue with that is that I think the best approach would be to assume the images are not realistic by default and only consider they may approximate a realistic depiction if they're in the "realistic animals by…" cat. There obviously a major difference and people interested in for example how well AI tools can depict things / animals would only be interested in the contents of the realistic animals… cats without it being cluttered with hard to distinguish unrealistic depictions and vice versa if one let's say looks for an image that could help illustrate the cultural phenomenon of the use of these tools for humorous unrealistic depictions (especially animals are relatively easy to generate using AI tools but would be hard to paint so were previously relatively rare to be depicted just for humor in high-quality art), one may only be interested in images not in these cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia, there are several types of states, namely sovereign states, nation states, constituent states etc. However, this category deals with only constituent states, or more specifically, federated states. I have created Constituent states and Sovereign states for this and moved the info present in States to the respective subcats. However, JopkeB reverted my edits, citing info loss. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to start this discussion.

What I want is, that it is absolutely clear to visitors who are not familiar with the exact meanings of and differences between states, countries, constituent states, sovereing states and so on, what each of these categories is about. Yesterday I was confused because only the Wikidata item was left and that was not enough for me to understand what this category is about, so I reverted your edits. I hope that you can give here an overview of the involved categories with short descriptions and your view of the category structure. Perhaps we can include this overview (with links) in all of the involved categories when this discussion has been closed. JopkeB (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: Could you perhaps be more specific? What Wikipedia page(s) do you refer to? JopkeB (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JopkeB: w:State, of which w:States redirects to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thanks for your quick reply. JopkeB (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose disambiguation — While there are several things that can be called "states", the States category should focus on states as a type of polity, including sovereign states and constituent states. Also, the States and territories by year of establishment category tree should drop the term "states", as all states (sovereign or constituent) may be considered as territories. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that before we can discuss whether this category should become a disambiguation one or not, let's first have an overview of the involved categories with short descriptions and perhaps a proposed category structure. --JopkeB (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My current proposal is to define the category States as political entities that maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and it includes both Sovereign states and Constituent states. I have proposed the following category scheme for states (the list is not necessarily exhaustive):

• States
  • Flags of states
    • Flags of constituent states
    • Flags of sovereign states
  • Maps of states
    • Maps of constituent states
    • Maps of sovereign states
  • States by type
    • Constituent states
      • Federated states
        • States of India
        • States of the United States
      • States of Myanmar
    • Federations
    • Kingdoms
    • Sovereign states
  • State governments
    • State government buildings
    • State roads

The Sovereign states category should also be categorized under Countries by status because countries generally include sovereign states (excluding the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start.

 Agree

• States are political entities and include Sovereign states.
• Constituent states was moved (by you) to Federated states (I agree with this move); please adjust the scheme.

 Disagree

• Federated states‎ should be a subcategory of Federal countries, not of States themselves.

Proposals for descriptions of Commons categories (derived from EN-WP, unless otherwise stated), and a little bit hierarchical ordening in advance:

• Country = a region that is identified as a distinct national entity in a political geography (= current description in Commons)
• State = political entity, centralized political organization that regulates law and society within a territory.
  • Sovereign state = state that has the highest authority over a territory
    • Administrative division = geographical areas into which a particular independent sovereign state is divided (like subnational states/federated states), autonomous communities, provinces, oblasts and municipalities)
• Federation = [no description in EN-WP] umbrella category for all types of cooperating political entities (made up by me)
  • Federal country = political union of partially self-governing regions under a federal government; federation of states (like USA, Germany, India, UAE and many more)
    • Federated states (= Constituent states) = parts of a federal country; a political subdivision of a [sovereign, my addition] state; geographical areas into which a particular independent sovereign state is divided
  • Confederation = political union of sovereign states united for purposes of common action (like the Europen Union and the African Union)
• Dependent territory = territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty and remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area (like colonies)

 Question @Sbb1413 and Crouch, Swale: Do you agree with these descriptions for Commons? Are any other main categories involved (what did I forget)?

After we agree, we can discuss whether:

• States should be a disambigious page
• What a good category structure would be.

JopkeB (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as I mentioned its a DAB on Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: That was not the question yet. The question for now is: Do you agree with the descriptions in the proposal? If we all do, then we can discuss whether it should be a DAB or not and the category structure. Please, one step at a time. JopkeB (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes apart from the point that "State" is for "political entity" but should be a DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion about Wales (which is much broader than Wales alone) I propose to put this discussion on hold, until that discussion has been closed. Conclusions there can be:

• Countries/souvereign states will be the highest level.
• Countries = souvereign states and the last one eventually might get a redirect.

These conclusions might have consequences for this discussion, for the descriptions and category structure and so we'll better wait. --JopkeB (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and Sbb1413: Based on the recent comments by Sbb1413, its seems "states" has indeed become part of the discussion on "countries" and that what we do for both is a bit interlinked, so is there any objection to simply subsuming this into the discussion there at this point? Once that one is settled, we can still open a new 'states' discussion or even just re-open this one if it is needed. Josh (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I have no objection. But @Joshbaumgartner: how would you do the subsuming? Would all of this discussion or parts of it be included in the Wales discussion? JopkeB (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB Generally, when I have done so in the past, I do a few steps:

1. On the subsumed discussion:
   1. Summarize the reason for subsuming and link to the continuing discussion.
   2. Close the subsumed discussion and ping all participants in it, as well as the other normal steps with closing a discussion.
   3. The only exception to normal process is that instead of simply removing the CfD template from affected categories, I replace them with a CfD template linked to the continuing discussion, and add both the subsumed and continuing discussions to their talk pages.
2. On the continuing discussion:
   1. Add a line at the top of the discussion: ":see subsumed discussion at <link>."
   2. Add new comment indicating that another discussion (linked) has been subsumed into this one.

I don't copy the text over, as duplicating comments is not a great thing to do. Including the discussion as a template as I do on talk or summary pages doesn't really work, even collapsed, due to the header levels used. So far I've not heard any negative feedback to the process I outlined above, though admittedly this is an unusually involved discussion. Josh (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good plan to me. Still one question: When the Wales discussion will be closed, will the consequences for this discussion be implemented as well, or will there be a new discussion? JopkeB (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB If there are matters here which in fact are not addressed by the conclusions there, thus leaving something unresolved when that discussion is closed, then a fresh discussion can be opened to cover that unresolved portion. If you feel there is a subject in this one that is unlikely to be considered in the new one, I suppose you can leave this open with the scope narrowed to that specific topic, though I haven't done that myself yet. The thing we really want to avoid (and the reason to subsume in the first place) is reaching contradictory consensus in two different discussions. Josh (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to Category:Sitelen sitelen word glyphs drawn by Jonathan Gabel to be consistent with Category:Sitelen sitelen word glyphs drawn by Aronora Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the lead of Category:SVGs_of_sitelen_sitelen_word_symbols, so either rename Aronora's files to match or rename those SVGs too. (Looking at Jonathan Gabel's website, he does use the word "glyph", which convinces me to go with the latter.) ~Sobsz ^{aka hecko} (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobsz I think you are right. Best to rename Category:Sitelen sitelen word glyphs drawn by Aronora to symbols instead Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi! I'm the one who categorised the ones by Aronora, I prefer having both of these at symbols as that word is more commonly used in the toki pona, it feels more natural. Juwan (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a (badly named) duplicate of category:Leonfeldener Straße (@Karl Gruber: who created both). acc. to https://www.statistik.at/statistik.at/strassen/#/strassenInput I would assume that the official name is category:Leonfeldner Straße (without e), also [1] and thus the target category and the WP article should also be renamed. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On this named source the street is named as Leonfelder Straße, not Leonfeldner Straße so without en ;-) ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 08:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good point. let me make mistakes too. :-) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correctest way, because newest result, would be the name from Statistik Austria, that means Leonfeldner Straße — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Gruber (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14. Jan. 2024‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure (see also de:Diskussion:Leonfeldener Straße) whether Leonfeldner Straße is just the name of the municipality street in Linz (see [2]) and other municipalities (?as given by Statistik Austria) and the B126 as a whole has a different name. Before we merge and move here, this best is clarified on de:Diskussion:Leonfeldener Straße. Still I have not found an official document defining the name. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Countries of the Antarctic and Category:Countries of the Antarctic by name because 1) there are no actual countries in Antarctica, only claimed territories, and 2) the entries in the categories are not countries. The claimed territories are covered by Category:Claimed territories of Antarctica. Auntof6 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Countries of the Antarctic to Claimed territories of Antarctica and rename Countries of the Antarctic by name to Claimed territories of Antarctica by name for now, since there's a CFD on the Countries category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support  Redirect Category:Countries of the Antarctic to Category:Claimed territories of Antarctica Josh (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Countries of the Antarctic by name and move contents up to parent. This was actually orphaned so I added the natural parent, but I think the contents can simply upmerge, no need to keep them segregated down in a 'by name' index. Josh (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really different than Category:Old maps of Istanbul, and no point to have both categories to show the maps of the same city (Constantinople is just the former name of the city). Nanahuatl (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They predate the Fall of Constantinople. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged: , the name continued to be used until 1930, officialy. But we don't have "maps of New Amsterdam" or similar categories, do we? Nanahuatl (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually we do - Category:Maps of New Amsterdam, USA. And why wouldn't we? How else would you find such 16th century maps among a morass of modern maps? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: For the same reason Constantinople is not a redirect to Istanbul. Josh (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is unnecessary as it merely duplicates other categories. The same set of pictures appears in Category:GWR 4073 Class 4079 Pendennis Castle in the United Kingdom and Category:GWR 4073 Class 4079 Pendennis Castle in GWR Brunswick Green livery Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman (all files) too

This seems to be a well-intentioned attempt to flatten the hierarchy of subcategories for these locos. However we don't generally do that (some editors are insistent that we should) and it's hard work to maintain it. A much better way is to use Petscan or similar tools (if they ever work though).

So  Delete both of these, and any others that come up.Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:The CW Television Network. (The network has not actually changed its name; "The" was only removed from the visual logo.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with its parent category, this would be redundant to Category:The CW logos if it actually contained anything. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Move to Category:The CW logos because either two categories contained the similar content about The CW logos, so merging them into single category is more necessary with CW Television Network is a redirect link to that already created page. Yayan550 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't this be merged to the Category:Sun viewed from Earth above it since that contains photos of Sun viewed from Earth (incl. e.g. Category:Aircraft with the sun)? Moreover, structuring the cat via subcats by year doesn't make much sense to me; there would be more useful things to organize the images by such as what the focus / specialty of the image is. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Upmerge to Category:Sun viewed from Earth. @Prototyperspective, indexing is not a question of either/or, you can create an index by focus and/or specialty if you wish with no need to delete the by year indexing. Josh (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was not suggesting that the year cats be deleted. It's just that in this case and not rarely in other cases the subcats don't make much sense (i.e. aren't distinguishing the contents by criteria/characteristics that are most meaningful in that context) and that it can be difficult to create subcats for the latter once the files are a) dispersed across b) often deeply-nested subcategories. Two technical changes could make doing so easier but especially now and with mostly-manual once-only subcategorization practices, it's quite problematic, especially from a user standpoint who seeks to see many images for some category. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing. Creator is referring to Category:Esjan. Akrafjall is not a part of it. Snævar (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esjan is partially made from rests of the Stardalsvolcano and partially from rests of the Kjalarnesvolcano. See eg. Snæbjörn Guðmundsson: Vegvísir um jarðfræði Íslands. (2019) p. 37-38, chapter re. Esja.

No such thing. Hrappsey is an island and is not part of an active volcanic system. Snævar (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not alone talking about active volcanoes, but also about old and eroded ones which I also indicate in the categories. This volcano, the Hrappsey volcano, was active during the Tertiary (Miocene/Pliocene). See eg. Léo Kristjánsson and Haukur Jóhannesson: Secular variation and reversals in a composite 2.5 km thick lava section in central Western Iceland. (1999) Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Ari Trausti Guðmundsson: Íslensk Fjöll. Reykjavík (Mál og Menning) 2004 ,p.46.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing. Hrappsey is an island and is not part of an active volcanic system. Snævar (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not exist. Not a mountain or an volcano. Could be "Gráhraun" (for the lava field) if some geological category is wanted, but otherwise merge with Category:Húsafell. Snævar (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. There are the rests of an (Pliocene, about 2 mill. years) old volcano at Húsafell. This is eg. mentioned by Snæbjörn Guðmundsson in his book Vegavísir um jarðfræði Íslands. (2015) p. 67, as well as in these scientific articles

• Holly E. Unwin, Hugh Tuffen, etal.: Pressure-Driven Opening and Filling of a Volcanic Hydrofracture Recorded by Tuffisite at Húsafell, Iceland: A Potential Seismic Source (2021) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.668058/full?&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Earth_Science&id=668058 and
• K Saemundsson, H Noll: K/Ar ages of rocks from Husafell, western Iceland, and the development of the Husafell central volcano (1974) Jokull, v. 24 . Hornstrandir1 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does not exist. Lón is an bay, and not an volcano. Split contents like so: Vestrahorn has klifatindur and "rock formations at vestrahorn". Krossanesfjall has eystrahorn, Lón is separate. Snævar (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my former comment? There are scientific articles mentioning the Lónvolcano, eg. by Thor Thordarsson and Ármann Höskuldsson in their book about the geology of Iceland. Acc. to them it was existing in the background of the today bay. Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Thor Thordarson, Armann Hoskuldsson: Iceland. Classic geology in Europe 3. Harpenden 2002, p.124.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the content of my comments just argument against it, but don't remove them.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing, move Móskarðshnúkar and Skálafell to Esjan. Stardal is an valley, not an volcano. Snævar (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, this an old volcano which formed part of Esja. See eg. Snæbjörn Guðmundsson: Vegvísir um jarðfræði Íslands. Reykjavík (Mál og Menning) 2015, p.39.Hornstrandir1 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is still used wrong, tho. Esjan is a parent category of this one, not a subcategory. Under Esjan should be all of the other categories, namely Móskarðshnúkar‎ and Skálafell. Since Stardalur is an valley, as the name implies, those mountains are not a part of it.

Did find three science articles on the volcano, all seem to argue that it should be one and do not indicate that it is an long accepted categorization. As for me going to the library and picking up a book, In your dreams. Snævar (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://doaj.org/article/eaca34b998234d5f82c823c3c9ae18cf

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0012821X08002458

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0377027306003994 Snævar (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this should be merged to Category:Alan Wilson (musician). Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OVERCAT. Merge back into Category:Rail transport in the United Kingdom by year, similarly for child categories Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: I agree with Andy Dingley. I don't really understand the need for the whole 'year of photographing' thing. Photographs by their nature depict the time of their photographing, so there is no difference between 'year' and 'year of photographing' for photographs. I get it for other media: one can make a painting in 2024 that depicts a scene from 1924, but that doesn't work for photographs. Perhaps photographs of photographs could be a very small corner case, but not enough to warrant this rather cumbersome duplicate category tree for all photographs (the vast majority of Commons content). I would support upmerging all 'year of photographing' to normal 'year' categories, but at the least, this one is a good start. Josh (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baummapper: Names of subcategories should contain the name and not only the number of the natural monument, As I dont find the correct category eben when I left it immeadeatly befor and look in the parent category! Possible names for Category:Natural monument 6.33.406 in Immenhausen: Category:Natural monument 6.33.406 - Kampteich, Category:Kampteich (Natural monument 6.33.406 in Immenhausen), Category:Kampteich in Immenhausen

Deutsch: Die Namen der Unterkategorien sind für mich ein echtes Problem, weil ich die gesuchte Kategorie in der übergeordneten Kategorie nicht wiederfinde, selbst wenn ich sie gerade eben verlassen habe. Wenn sich Kategorien nur durch eine Nummer unterscheiden und den Namen des Naturdenkmals nicht enthalten, erkennt man das gesuchte Naturdenkmal nicht wirklich in der übergeordneten Kategorie. Die Namen sollen dringend geändert werden! Mögliche Varianten: für Category:Natural monument 6.33.406 in Immenhausen wären beispielsweise Category:Natural monument 6.33.406 - Kampteich, Category:Kampteich (Natural monument 6.33.406 in Immenhausen), von mir aus auch einfach Category:Kampteich in Immenhausen, aber Nummer und Immenhausen reicht nicht!Kersti (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective definition of "micro state": most entries are internationally recognised sovereign states. Should be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep — the category uses the Wikipedia definition of European microstates, "The European microstates or European ministates are a set of very small sovereign states in Europe. In modern contexts the term is typically used to refer to the six smallest states in Europe by area: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City (the Holy See)." I can't understand why microstates can't be internationally recognised sovereign states. I think you are confusing microstates (small sovereign states) with micronations (unrecognised paper states). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion involved. I'm aware of both. It still reeks of Original Research. Even in Wiki, there is no agreement as to the definition. It's entirely subjective: one man's small is another man's OK. Is Abkhazia a microstate if Russia says that it is? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this category is deleted on subjective grounds, then the entire Microstates hierarchy should be deleted instead of just this category. However, we need to categorise the maps that purportedly show microstates. We have 8 or more maps that show microstates of Europe, and Microstates of Europe is useful for that purpose. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest Category:Political maps of Europe as a suitable home. And yes, I would not oppose the deletion of micronations but will not nominate it at this time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...entire Microstates hierarchy" - it's scarcely a hierarchy. One parent & child. Burn both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Sbb1413 --Микола Василечко (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, doesn't have content Sadads (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now it has a content: Lapataia. --Fadesga (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the category name singular rather than plural? Jmabel ! talk 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support plural form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Polygraph to Category:Polygraphs Josh (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Category should be renamed from Bill Blair (police chief) to Bill Blair (politician) to reflect his current occupation. He is no longer a police chief and is now presently a politician in the federal government of Canada. PascalHD (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support: for dab info, the most general term that is sufficient to disambiguate is preferred. We don't want to be more specific than necessary, lest we be chasing down category name changes every time someone tweaks their job title. We don't even have any other Bill Blair categories, so the dab is almost unnecessary at all. Josh (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, per @PascalHD and @Joshbaumgartner. I just added another new file with him as Canada's Defense Minister. --Ooligan (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive categorisation to administrative entities unsupported by sufficient content. There are not enough members to justify the grand scheme that have been created. There are multiple levels of state administrative territorial entities; at bottom, we get to a couple of parishes in a single city. At best, this warrents a "by region/oblast" category structure. It does not need sub-categorisation by different levels of territorial administration. If other parishes are created later, we can look at this again. Right now, there is no need for such micro categorisation. The present parent / child structure is: ::Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Buchach Hromada -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Chortkiv Raion by hromada ->Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Chortkiv Raion -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ternopil Oblast by raion -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ternopil Oblast -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ukraine by region -> Category:Ecclesiastical parishes in Ukraine. Courtesy ping to the category's creator -- @Микола Василечко: Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although this from Flickr imported category does indeed have a compatible license there, these are images taken from a copyrighted film. Shouldn’t they have a OTRS-ticket each? Qualitätssicherung (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If the problem is with the files they need to be nominated for deletion and then this category will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the intent of this category? There is an image on the page that is not in the category; there are three files in the category, pictures of people with no apparent relation to one another. The category name merely means "public figure" in Spanish and Portuguese. Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Redirect to Celebrities. Remove any content that are not celebrities. Josh (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are d:Q662729, articles on 30 projects and no commons cat. Not sure if Celebrities (d:Q211236) matches fully, but I do not oppose redirecting. --Achim55 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles linked to public figure (Q662729) are about the legal concept of a public figure, often in relation to US law. This is a somewhat vague term, even in law, and isn't especially useful for categorizing media or categories. If a person is a public figure, that's because they've been involved in something significant - e.g. they're an artist, they're a politician, they're an activist, etc - and it should be possible to apply a more specific category related to that. Omphalographer (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with {Omphalographer that is not a useful Commons categorization. It would probably apply to the majority (or close) of living people whose pictures are on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the category name singular? Normally such categories have plural names. Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support even the Wikipedia article is in the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support seems an uncontroversial pluralization fix. Josh (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support this is apparently an error due to the extend of it when created in 2007: the whole of "Quakerism". The Category:Quakerism was created in 2014, a more correct approach would then have been to rename Cat:Quaker in Cat:Quakerism, and add a new Cat:Quakers. MHM (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-centric twaddle. Please delete this patronising propaganda. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Home Nations into Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom which this cat is completely redundant to. Josh (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Suggestion of Joshbaumgartner -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Weak keep — The term refers to the Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom, along with Category:England and Wales and Category:Ireland. The category is useful in the context of sports. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there no sporting members in the category? Their absence suggests that it is indeed redundant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to “Jochi Mausoleum” as this is Name used (also on wikidata) for the person buried. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States didn't exist before the 18th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for all following (United States in <year/decade>-Categories): Nope, no nuking without finding a suitable replacement. And there I'm not convinced yet that we could have a suitable alternative. Yes, we don't have the US which is obvious, but what different umbrella will we use for content in these categories? For the continental territories we might use a general "<year> in North America", but as soon as there are the English colonies that will later make up the territory of the US, I think we shouldn't create a complicated system of new categories. For example, Virginia and Conneticut were places even when there wasn't a US state, but there were about three Colonial structures that organized the pre-US-territories. Remember, there were Crown Colonies, Charter Colonies, border redrawings, renamings of territories. There was at one point a unification of the whole colonial chaos, the Dominion of New England but it was very short-lived (1886-1889). Summing this up: Using the current states and US as the category tree is better than super-political-correct names that nobody will be able to make sense of. We should instead just place a short disclaimer in all categories before 1776, why this structure was chosen despite being anachronistic. --Enyavar (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by decade has categories going back more than two thousand years earlier.) Suggestions for alternative method of organizing media by time & place? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to all USA nominations below There is a difference between the creation date of an object (e.g. a work of art) and the current location of that same object (e.g. USA). A piece of art painted in Itaty in the year 1501 is entitled to be categorised as Category:1501 in Italy; that same piece of art, if it is currently in a museum in New York, is entitled to be categorised as Category:Art of New York City. It is not, however, permissible to categorise that piece of art as Category:1501 in the United States, firstly because it was never created in the United States and secondly because the USA itself did not exist in that year. At best, it is a permitted member of Category:1501 paintings in the United States, since the painting was indeed painted in 1501 and in currently housed in the USA. However, I think that this category is itself rather problematic as it may give the impression that the painting was painted in the USA in 1501; accuracy of this category could be improved by renaming it to Category:Paintings created in 1501 that are currently located in the United States. A bit clunky, but better conveys the intent. In Wikipedia, the problem of what to call that bit of North America before the foundation of the USA is solved by the "Category:Years of the 18th century in the Thirteen Colonies": I recommend this solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha! Now that is a fully different reasoning, and one I support. I knew the contents of several other categories like that from the 17th century, and just assumed that we had similar cases here: Files connected to events that happened (e.g.) 1528 in Florida. For that content, a category of "1528 in Florida" is in my opinion fully justified, and would logically fit into "1528 in the US". Same with "Category:Puerto Rico in the 1530s" --> This category is about a building built in Puerto Rico in 1532, so yes my reasoning of above applies, the Florida or the Puerto Rico categories should stay, and so would the US categories (Florida and Puerto Rico were famously NOT part of the 13 colonies).
• You are right about the 1500s examples: all we have here, are 1501, 1505 and 1508 and 1509 paintings that by accident are currently residing in the US, and those have really no connection at all to "1501 in the US", and (like this work from 1501 in Urbino) no business staying in the "1501 in the US" category. In my opinion, those files should be recategorized into a category like 1500s works displayed in the United States, and the works themselves must be properly categorized as "<year> work from <country>". Once that is done, we have empty US-categories, and those wouldn't be needed anymore. See also this fresco (not part of 1100s in the US) and this bust (not part of 500 BC in the US). --Enyavar (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This points to a fundamental problem with the naming order of "<year> in <country>" categories, which indeed would indicate that the primary topic is the year, limited to the geographic/political limits of a country. It would have been better if we had gone with "<country> in <year>", in which the primary topic is the country, specific to a given year. That's a pretty esoteric delineation but in this case it matters. Currently, we are using "1501 in the United States" to put depictions of 1501 which are at some point within the United States (i.e. a painting made in 1501 that is in a US gallery in 2001). Technically, this is okay as a depiction of 1501 may indeed be on display in the US in 2001, but results in weird categories such as these that are nominated.

Unfortunately, just as Category:2001 in the United States is a natural parent of Category:2001 paintings in the United States, Category:1501 in the United States is a natural parent of Category:1501 paintings in the United States, so trying to suppress that parent for some (pre-1776) years but not all is a nightmare for maintenance swimming against the tide.

None of this changes the fact that Category:1501 in the United States is completely counter-intuitive on its face, yet technically legitimate, and could certainly cause some confusion. Category:United States in 1501 would be a lot clearer, and definitely not legitimate, making deletion straight-forward. Basically, there was indeed no United States in 1501 (even conceptually, as far as I am aware), but 1501 can exist (as a concept, or a depiction of that year) in the United States.

So my support depends on the structure used:

1. If we keep the current structure of "'year' in 'country'" categories, I'd say  Keep for now, and we instead need to rely on better hatnotes and diffusion to mitigate the potential confusions.
2. Alternatively, if we make them "'country' in 'year'", we can clearly  Delete any years which precede a country's conception.

Josh (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only European paintings created in 1501, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only European paintings created in 1505, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only European paintings created in 1508, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only European paintings created in 1509, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico dis not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep You are mistaken. It most certainly did. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: Would you also want to rename Australia (before 1901) as "British Empire"? Puerto Rico is geographical location (an island), what other name do you suggest we use for the location?  Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as Enyavar. --> today's country (area), pictures/works by years in this area --> This is common in Commons (for all countries), for example

• Category:1344 in the United States (there may have been indigenous peoples, but no states yet)
• Category:20 in Italy (there was the Roman Empire)
• --> but keep as all others worldwide (because it is common and would otherwise become too complicated, especially in Europe, where national borders from Romans to Napoleon to WW I, WW II, Yugoslavia War, ... have postponed again and again). -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is anachronistic. No such dependent territory existed in that year; only the Spanish colony existed in that year. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big difference to your example, where Puerto Rico didn't exist yet, and wonder what the goal of your discussion is supposed to be. I voted to keep because that's how it's handled around the world in commons. Today's country --> Pictures by year in this area (today's country). In my two examples (US, Italy), the countries did not yet exist in 1344 and 20, such as Puerto Rico in the 1500s, but it is categorized by years in today's territory (country) in the 3 examples. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1344 in the United States is really the story of Category:1344 in North America since it predates the creation of modern sovereign states in that continent. Italy is a different story. Arguably Italy, or the Italian peninsula at least, has existed from time immemorial. Not so with the USA - it is a political creation with a defined start date. From recorded history, the political history of Puerto Rico is one with many masters, each of which has its own category. It is a case of "presentism" to try to annex history to current countries, simply because they currently happen to occupy that territory. Such anachronistic errors ought to be avoided as they are akin to colonialism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category to Category:Captaincy General of Puerto Rico in the 1500s or maybe Category:Colonial Puerto Rico in the 1500s. Category:Puerto Rico is for the Commonwealth which is part of the United States, and it did not exist in the 1500s. We should also have a category for the island itself, but I don't see one yet. Josh (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You are mistaken. The name "Puerto Rico" for the island predates the US Commonwealth era by centuries. (eg File:Insula S. Juan de Puerto Rico Caribes ; vel Canibasum Insulæ. R 2= 22. Pièce 59.jpg. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tree did exist though, and its existence from the 11th century until the 1940s seems noteworthy? Although I agree that the mentioned world events of 1066, 1259, 1492, 1620 etc. are not really connected to this tree. While Category:Plaques referencing 1620 in the United States are keep-worthy, Category:Plaques referencing 1066 in the United States should get deleted, the single file in it be moved to Category:Plaques referencing 1066; and the empty category gets deleted. (Same with the categories regarding 1259 and 1492) --Enyavar (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable tree; that's not disputed. And it's in the USA; that's not disputed. And it was in North America in 1066 - that can be legitimately created if there is sufficient content for such a category. What may not be done, however, is to make it appear that the USA existed in 1066. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only European artwork created in 1529, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only European artwork created in 1531, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So? What do you suggest? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, the San José Church is one of the oldest buildings in the US. The other stuff (European artwork created in 1532, which are coincidentally in the US now) should be recategorized though, it is not connected in any way to "1532 in the US". --Enyavar (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an old building in the USA today. It was not an old building in the USA in 1532 since the USA did not exist in that year. Instead, it was a building in North America in 1532, which is how Wikipedia categorises it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: So, what do you suggest be done about it? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete it and it's ilk. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Contains only European artwork created in 1531, which are coincidentally in the US now. Proposal: Recategorize the subcategories as per the suggestion above, then delete the empty category. --Enyavar (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can agree to that. I'm not sure that any manual recategorisations will even be necessary - they are already adequately parented. As far as I know, no informational or navigational loss will ensue if they deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PUERTO RICO did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Yes, it most certainly did. You are mistaken. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would nominator also want to rename Australia (before 1901) as "British Empire"? Puerto Rico is a geographical location (an island), what other name do you suggest we use for the location?  Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" (Puerto Rico) did not exist in the 1530s. It is anachronistic to say so. When it was "discovered", Columbus named the island San Juan Bautista. At that time the island was part of the Spanish colony of the Captaincy General of Puerto Rico. So a more correct name would be Category:Captaincy General of Puerto Rico in the 1530s. But since the intent of the category is to retro-fit the current administration into a remote period of time, that will not suit the purposes of the creator. It is therefore best to delete this and similarly named categories until sufficient members exist to fill a category of Category:Captaincy General of Puerto Rico by date. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not named "Commonwealth of...", it is just named Puerto Rico, the common name today in most languages for the geographical location, the island. (Just as Australia existed before 1901, and America existed before 1507 when it was first named as America, etc...) The en:History of Puerto Rico for example includes everything before 1943, and also stuff from before 1776, and even pre-colonial history. --Enyavar (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the island has existed since time immemorial. But the nominated category is not parented to the island as a geographic island. The problem is that the nominated category is parented to a particular political entity - the USA. Before 1896, it would be anachronistic to make such a parent / child relationship. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even according to your "historical correct parenting", the category we debate here MUST still exist, only as part of Category:Spanish Empire in the 1530s. If you find a consensus for that kind of categorization, then please build the whole category tree for the entire "Spanish Empire by decade/year", then recategorize "Puerto Rico in the 1530s" to be part of that one - and yes I would agree to that idea as it is more historically correct, I would in fact love that kind of correctness. The recategorization of Puerto Rico from the US to the Spanish Empire might also empty Category:United States in the 1530s, and then... no-one objects to deleting empty categories. But again, this kind of recategorization requires a consensus to do so, and a lot of planning, discussion and convincing others. (I'm led to believe that the Spanish Empire was on the larger side of countries: many countries will be affected by this ambitious idea.) --Enyavar (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that Commons is replete with categorical inaccuracies and anachronistic errors. Yes - a lot of work needs to be done. It has to start somewhere; it might as well be here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PUERTO RICO did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: Would you also want to rename Australia (before 1901) as "British Empire"? Puerto Rico is geographical location (an island), what other name do you suggest we use for the location?  Oppose any changes. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Certainly the island of Puerto Rico existed in 1532. Do you have a suggestion? Should it be retitled Borinquén, Borikén, La Isla de San Juan Bautista de Puerto Rico, or what, and for which years? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Your observation is certainly correct. However many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by decade has categories going back more than two thousand years earlier.) If you wish to suggest a better way of organizing things, please do so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep as per my argument in Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:1532 in the United States --Enyavar (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Your observation is certainly correct. However many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by year has categories going back more than a thousand years earlier.) If you wish to suggest a better way of organizing things, please do so. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The category contains multiple images that connect to events which happened in North America (in areas of the modern USA), or buildings that were built on (today's) US soil. We need a better suggestion for categories with this content. (Although I would suggest that we don't need categories for each single year, one for the whole decade would be sufficient?) --Enyavar (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category contains content that connect to events which happened in North America, on (today's) US soil. An outright deletion is out of the question, we first need a better suggestion under which name we group this content for it to be easily found via the category tree. (Although I would suggest that we don't need categories for each single year, one for the whole decade would be sufficient?) But: Some other stuff (European artwork created in 1541, which is coincidentally in the US now) should be recategorized though, it is not connected in any way to "1541 in the US". --Enyavar (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to learn it. Neither Category:1948 in Baden-Württemberg, Category:1944 in Slovenia, Category:1829 in Belgium, Category:1869 in Germany, Category:1859 in Italy, Category:1820 in Mexico and all the years before. Should I add more countries? --Birdie (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need. As I have written below, Commons is replete with such ahistorical errors and anachronistic categorizations. A lot of work needs to be done to correct them. The work starts with preventing the proliferation of fresh errors; a decision here would be a step in the right direction. Thereafter, the heavy burden of correcting the errors that have proliferated over the years can commence. It has to start somewhere; it might as well be 1542 in the United States. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The category is populated by events related to the European settlement of the United States (and Canada). Although I'd be sympathetic to ideas for renaming this (1604 in North America?) those woo would likely be nearly as anachronistic. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see Category:1604 in Canada: Canada also did not exist, and neither did Mexico. But the land occupied by these nations today existed, and on/around this land, events happened in 1604. Those events/buildings/creations belong in a category like the one this CfD is about. Laurel Lodged, please state what you wish to happen with the content in this category, or which other name you prefer for the category. --Enyavar (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Category:1604 in North America since it predates the period of the 13 colonies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is, of course, true, but often we tolerate those anachronisms to gain consistency of category naming over time. Similarly, Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1880. We could rework it, but it would take a lot of difficult work. - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it is a lot of work. But the rot has to be stopped now to prevent new errors occurring. And the backlog of errors must be corrected. Once they are corrected, there will be consistent - and correct - naming over time. There's never a good time to start; if not now, then when? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are miscategorizations, for which I made suggestions above. Several of the existing categories can be deleted, after all. But the general principle is that the categorization groups things in a consitent, searchable way (so that they may be found and used). That requires a system, and not a historical hodgepodge. One preferable system is to go by modern borders, unless there are historical or regional definitions that are more consistent. Grouping stuff within "Silesia"-categories (for the region) is preferable, because we otherwise need to consult a historical atlas to find out who held the territory in 1765 or 1654: Prussia, Poland or Austria? There ARE precedences: I have eliminated all "1234 maps of Israel" (i.e. everything prior to the 20th century) as a category, because there was no Israel between 500BCE (the end of ancient Israel) and 1948. The region (whether it belonged to Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Caliphates, Crusaders, Ottomans or Mandates) was consistently called Palestine, so there is a name that makes sense and which was already established in categories. Similarly, I have also eliminated all "1357 maps of Saudi-Arabia" (or UAE), because we do have a sensible alternative in just calling the region "Arabia" (instead of any modern or historical state). Note that I only implemented this change for maps, so far. You see: change is possible, but it took me years. One needs a suitable and consistent alternative, a plan and time and some tenacy.

In your case, I see no such consistent alternative in the first place. Your plan is abolishing the existing system, including geographical entities like Puerto Rico, and replace it with... what? "North America"? Ever-changing names of crown colonies and tribal territories, then "Thirteen Colonies" between 1776 and 1787, also "Nouvelle France" in the Mississippi area, then to be replaced by "Louisiana territory" followed by other various territories until we get the real states? That would be historical correct, but highly confusing for anyone who doesn't know every nook and cranny of the US territorial evolution: the average users who want to categorize their stuff, or would like to find their stuff. Do they know when the Oregon territory was created and dissolved? Must they exactly know when California stopped being a part of the Spanish Empire? The same goes also for every other nation in the world: Nobody may search for "India in the 1520s", because there was no such thing as an "In-di-a", people must go for "Mughal Empire in the 1520s" or "Viyanayagara Kingdom in the 1520s", depending on which part of India they are looking for. And things are never so simple... historical correct category systems quickly degenerate into utter madness, once you look too deep into border changes, conquests, condominiums and vassal states.
all the best, --Enyavar (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that was in the area presently called California, before there was ever a California, should not be categorized as "California". The "average user" would expect to find stuff in California that pertains to California. For everything else, there is "History of North America" by millennium, century, decade and year. That should be more than adequate. To put an Italian renaissance painting that was painted in 1607 into a "1607 in California" category, simply because that painting is currently housed in a Californian museum, is just ahistorical and an egregious example of presentism. It belongs to "Italian art in Californian museums", no more. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are towns in Ukraine that have been in 10 different sovereign states in the past 100 years. It would be silly to list all those states for the town. It should only be parented to the present state. Of course if there are establishments in that town that were established during the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then of course that particular object ought to be parented to "Establishments in the Austro-Hungarian Empire". Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. This 1607 category is basically focused on Jamestown VG, but let me expound on your California example: The US State of California was established in 1850, and the New Spain province of Alta California was founded in 1804. So your argument is essentially "there has been no California before 1804/1850 --> until then, this must be categorized just like any undocumented parts of North America". You are also bemoaning "1607 in California". Okay, that category doesn't exist, but I would argue that if we had a painting from 1607 that pictures trappers/explorers/natives of that year and region, there is a strong argument to place it in a regional category for California, and not lump it together with stuff that shows Florida in 1607 or Jamestown in 1607 (according to the "It's all North America"-argument). Because of issues with accurate dating, I would prefer to sort stuff of that era by decade or even century and not by year (like "--- in the 1600s" and "... in the 17th century"), but that is the temporal aspect. The geographical aspect is important too. We need a better system than just claiming that everything in the 1600s was "just North America". If stuff that we locate today in California, can be exactly pinpointed as 400 years old today (and was not imported from elsewhere) - then yes, it would be "1624 in California", and thus also "1624 in [the area which is today] the United States".

Look, the region was already explored by Spaniards from the 1510s to the 1540s, and the peninsula (of today's Mexico) was named "California" (here is a popular 1595 map design, labeling it as such). Okay, so the name was already applied, but to another region, right? Welllll... for some weird reason, cartographers in Europe started to believe that the peninsula was rather an island. The whole island was named "California", and it stretched from "Nova Albion" over "P. de Montoroy" (Monterrey CA) over "Canal de S. Barbara" (Santa Barbara CA) over "P.S. Diego" (San Diego CA) to the real peninsula. The mistake persisted throughout the 17th century. Afterwards, IF the area was named at all on maps in the 18th century, it was for a while known as "New Albion", but there was shift back to California, soon after the first European settlements were created in 1769. "California Septentrionalis" (i.e. Northern Cal.) became popular towards the end of the 18th century - understanding that "California Meriodionalis" would be the peninsula. In 1811, "Nueva California" was again distinct from the peninsula which was called Vieja Cal.

My argument stands: The geographical entity of "California" existed before 1804/1850, and if there is earlier stuff we need to categorize, it must go into "California". --Enyavar (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (P.S: written in March iIrc, but signed now.)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA did not exist in this year Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is empty Hladnikm (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete as empty. Can be re-created if content is added. Josh (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what's this category for? delete if not needed anymore.

it's not linked from anywhere.

cat creator's contribs history doesnt give a clue. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2019-02-22&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=&target=%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF+%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%84+%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%A9+%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84+2&offset=20190219114057&limit=500

is the cat title a reference to User:Jcb? do you know what this is about? RZuo (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cat was never meant to be created, it was added to files to assist the deletion process and Yann failed to remove it on undeletion. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Category:Yamato-Okunitama-jinja, Minamiawaji because it is ambiguous with Category:Yamato Okunitama Shrine, Mima. Japanese names are unambiguous but romanizations are ambiguous Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what "either" is supposed to mean here. I presume it means tiptoeing with only one foot (either left or right?). There is no 'both' analog, so this kind of stands alone. I'm not sure if we need this or it can be upmerged into People tiptoeing. If it is kept, it needs a better name, thus either:

1.  Keep to diffuse tiptoeing based on which feet are used. Set up appropriate name and structure, something akin to:

   Category:People tiptoeing (current parent)

   Category:People tiptoeing with both feet

   Category:People tiptoeing with left foot only (part of current Tiptoeing (either))

   Category:People tiptoeing with right foot only (other part of current Tiptoeing (either))

2.  Delete since diffusing based on foot usage is unnecessary. Upmerge contents into Category:People tiptoeing

I'm fine with either solution, which seems better? Josh (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I have no idea how one tiptoes on one foot. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andy Dingley I agree tiptoeing on one foot doesn't seem to be a thing. It seems we are conflating the action and the pose in this category. One can certainly be in a position of having only one foot on toes, and the other in some other position, but that's not necessarily the act of 'tiptoeing'. The action is more difficult though, and since most images are still photos, it is hard to determine often whether someone is doing the action of tiptoeing or just posed with a foot on their toes. Josh (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If possible 1.  Keep Because often, "both feet" different purpose from "either feet" in this case. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question @Andy Dingley, @Benzoyl, is "tiptoeing" a valid word to describe the positioning of feet on their toes, or it is it exclusive to the action of walking without the ball of the foot touching the ground? Would people on their toes or something be better for the pose than People tiptoeing? Josh (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  want to be higher
  (both feet)
• 
  Not want to be higher, a kind of posing
  (right foot only)

I have literally no idea. I'm not the person to ask. I'd suggest that some sort of dance choreography vocabulary would be the place to look. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Accounts of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1" or similar, because:

1. The term "sockpuppet" implies misuse.^[1]
2. This user's accounts are not used to disrupt commons. They are simply accounts used to upload different sets of educational photos. RZuo (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Fæ: as the creator of the "Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1" Category page. Note that they said that they prefer to be reached by e-mail 📨. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, per Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/01#Problematic file names and irrelevant categorization by sockpuppet group and User talk:Taivo#Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1, account group is clearly engaging in systematic disruption by intentionally falsely naming and categorising hundreds to thousands of files. As an additional note: sysop The Squirrel Conspiracy declined the category rename request once already. --LuciferianThomas 08:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - "Sockpuppets of [user]" is the formula that {{Sockpuppet}} expects. Also, there is no legitimate explanation for someone having nearly 400 accounts. Regardless of anything else they've done, that alone is misuse. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  there is no need for any explanation for having multiple accounts. their use of multiple accounts is not what https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppetry defines. RZuo (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I replicated the first few lines of that page below. Having 400 accounts is definitely "contrary to accepted practices of the community". It also says "Where a user has multiple accounts it is an expectation that they publicly disclose those accounts" and they didn't do that. I'm not sure why you're dead-set on defending and enabling this behavior, but I very much do not think policy is on your side here. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  an expectation is not a requirement.

  there's no commons policy that forbids this usage of multiple accounts.

  since there isnt anything on commons that defines misuse of multiple accounts, one way you can try to prove they are "contrary to accepted practices of the community", is go com:rfcu and see if the checkusers will entertain your requests at all. another way is, start a discussion on a general forum.

  what this user is essentially doing is merely uploading photos using different accounts. what is the disruption by doing this? you cannot argue that they are hiding their identity either, because they edit in such a unique personal style that even with different accounts you can easily see they're the same user.

  on the other hand, there have been in the past more than 1 discussions about this user. conclusion is let them be.

  now the question should be, why some users are so hostile to a long-time (since 2006?) commons user who has contributed 90000+ photos? what justifies your hostility? RZuo (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is unnecessary to use "before" and a certain year, and why user 2020 as the cut-off? A1Cafel (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why user 2020 as the cut-off? Because that's the year she was nominated to the US Supreme Court, I suppose. All four of these photos happen to be from 2018, so it might be more appropriate to rename to that - but there's nothing terribly wrong with the current name either. Omphalographer (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If all the images were taken in 2018, why can't we use "Category:Amy Coney Barrett in 2018"? The current name is nothing terribly wrong, but also not the best. --A1Cafel (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Fantin-Latour, Henri - A Studio at Batignolles to Category:A Studio at Batignolles : just use correct name of art work. This is a unique name, so no dab needed. Josh (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no reason to rename the category. On commons there is no question of unique name. By the way, the name is not unique, as it concerns any studio at batignolles, not even a painting. On commons we have the policy for category naming of artworks to use the artist's name too, to recognize what the category is about. It is just the other way round, we rename categories without artist's name. So the majority of commons artwork categories include correctly the artist's name, see renaming of Un atelier aux Batignolles

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AThe_Virgin_and_Child_between_Saint_Anthony_of_Padua_and_Saint_Roque.jpg&diff=81518032&oldid=81501659

User_talk:Maltaper/Archive_3#Categorie dipinti

Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/10/Category:Virgin and Child between St Anthony of Padua and St Roque

Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/10/Category:Beach at Scheveningen in Calm Weather with further links

Oursana (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is no other category on Commons named "A Studio at Batignolles", and a category concerning 'any studio at Batignolles' would be named "Category:Studios at Batignolles", so no, the name alone would be unique and unambiguous. However, certain topics do warrant automatically including certain dab info (e.g. ships) and that is probably a good idea for works of art.

@Oursana: Thanks for the links, that helps with things. I can certainly agree with including the artist's name as a matter of course for all works of art: The current name is a convoluted mess, but Category:A Studio at Batignolles (painting by Henri Fantin-Latour) or Category:A Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour would be just fine. The first gives better parsing between the name of the work and the artist, but either is a significant improvement on the status quo. Josh (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh: Thanks for your explanations. The difference between Fantin-Latour, Henri - A Studio at Batignolles and A Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour is not clear to me. But I agree with your last 2 proposals, especially the usual structure A Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour. Perhaps one could name it Studio at Batignolles by Henri Fantin-Latour for reasons of better sorting. I need not explain, that the artwork's title normally is not absolute, given by curators and differs by museum or exhibition.Oursana (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oursana I have looked over Commons:WikiProject Arts and there doesn't appear to be any agreed upon or published format yet. I've made a post at Commons talk:WikiProject Arts/Manual of Style/Categories suggesting a basic starting point for one. I would love to not have to re-invent the wheel for each individual work of art on Commons. Josh (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cross-legged sitting and Category:Agura seem to cover the same territory as this. Agura may be a more specific posture than the other two, but it isn't clear by the category description or contents that it is anything more than just sitting cross-legged in Japanese. Recommend a merge unless there is a real differentiation we can and should delineate. Josh (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There is also Category:Sitting with legs crossed, but this does appear to be different, as it is for people sitting in chairs or such with one leg over the other, vs. the nominated category which is for sitting down on a flat surface cross-legged, so for this reason I did not include this category in the merge recommendation, but it may still be germane to the discussion. Josh (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Category:Cross-legged sitting could conceivably be broader than Category:People sitting cross-legged if we had media of non-people sitting in such a manner. I did not see any such images there, so for now it seems we just have images of people sitting this way, thus recommending it for merge. Josh (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the weekend edition of NBC Nightly News actually merits a separate category. All three files in it are logos and would seem to more logically fit in Category:NBC Nightly News logos; two of them are already in it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All files from Category:SVG road signs of Texas should be moved to Category:SVG road signs in Texas — replace "of" with "in" in the category name. Delete the category with "of", a category with "in" should be left. WWBM (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. — Jerome Potts (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears "in" is the commonly used preposition for this topic. "Of" is actually probably better, but for now, this one should be changed to fit the group per the Universality Principle , unless and until a decision is made to change all states to "of" (not holding my breath). Josh (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Major League Soccer broadcasts
• Category:Major League Soccer on television
• Category:Major League Soccer over-the-air television broadcasters

These categories all just contain each other in order, and the bottom category contains only Category:WJLA-TV. The "broadcasts" and "on television" categories have no use, and I also don't think it's worth having the "over-the-air television broadcasters" category, especially since MLS does not have any local broadcasters anymore under their Apple TV deal. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all. Broadcaster categories should not be categorized by every type of sport or league they have ever broadcast. Josh (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently for the same content as Toulouse cross in heraldry; I don’t know which name is better but one of them should be a redirect. This cat was created only last year, while the other dates to 2008. Whichever is kept, there is descriptive content & categorization that should be merged from the other. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult dilemma. Maybe we should make a list of named crosses to see what the common form is, if any: Maltese Cross - Cross of Malta? Lorraine Cross - Cross of Lorraine; Cross of Jerusalem - Jerusalem Cross, etc. Greek Cross, not "Cross of Greece". Some crosses are known as "Cross of ...." but not by the "adjectival form" (if that is the correct term), and others vice-versa. Thus the Cross of Lorraine is not known as the Lorraine Cross, as far as I am aware. But the Maltese Cross is probably not generally known as "Cross of Malta". I'm not sure that any general rule exists. Can we make a rule? It might take some thorough analysis of common forms to come to a conclusion. Something I would be willing to assist with. Until then maybe useful to have categories of both forms, each a member of the other category, which I have now done for these two as a temporary measure.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Redirect Absolutely no dilemma as the category is a duplicate

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were all created by User:Trigenibinion in late 2023, and they're a mess. They attempt to categorize various audio players (radios, stereos, MP3 players, etc) by different subsets of their features, e.g. whether they can receive FM radio, whether they are mono or stereo, whether they can play music from an SD card, and so on. Most of these categories only contain other categories for more specific subsets of features; there's only a small handful of actual audio player hardware images categorized, and these categories make them harder to find by burying them in subcategories.

Most of the features described by these categories probably don't belong on Commons at all; we aren't a product comparison site. Moreover, we can add multiple categories to the subject file or category describing each of its relevant features; we don't need a hyperspecialized category for the exact subset of features each device supports.

Given the sheer number of categories involved, I haven't added CFD notices to all of them. Please let me know if this is an issue.

--Omphalographer (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omphalographer Categorizing by significant functions makes some sense, but building every possible combination of specific feature sets seems a bit much. Some rationalization of this group makes sense, so what solution are you proposing here? Josh (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm proposing is that we replace these intersection categories on subject pages with categories which atomically describe the salient features of the radios, e.g.

File:RADIO 3SIXTY 2020 - black - Environment 01 Website.webp

−Category:2.1 Internet/DAB+/FM/USB/podcast radios; +Category:Internet radio receivers, +Category:DAB+ receivers, +Category:FM radio receivers, +Category:USB audio players, +Category:Podcast audio players (?).

Category:Kenwood DNX5160DABS

−Category:DAB+/AM/FM/LW/CD/DVD/USB/microSDHC/GPS receivers; +Category:DAB+ receivers, +Category:AM radio receivers, +Category:FM radio receivers, +Category:LW radio receivers, +Category:CD players, +Category:DVD players, +Category:SD audio players, +Category:GPS receivers.

As seen above, a couple of the atomic categories don't exist yet and will need to be created. But the net result should still be a much flatter and easier to navigate category structure. Once this is done, the intersection categories can all be deleted. Omphalographer (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree that it is not user friendly at all to have a lot of subcategories with only one subcategory (and so on), indeed "we don't need a hyperspecialized category for the exact subset of features each device supports". And I agree that for the single files in it, a combination of more general categories would be appropriate. So for me, you can go on! JopkeB (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of documentation, here's some of the replacements and related canonicalizations I intend on applying:

Keywords	New category
"AM"	Category:AM radio receivers (new)
"FM", "RDS-FM"	Category:FM radio receivers (RDS is irrelevant)
"LW"	Category:Longwave radio receivers
"SW"	Category:Shortwave radio receivers
"DAB", "DAB+", "DMB"	Category:DAB receivers
"Cassette"	Category:Compact Cassette players (this is a messy hierarchy of its own)
"CD"	Category:CD players
"DVD"	Category:DVD players
"SD", "SDHC", "microSD", etc	Category:SD audio players
"USB"	Category:USB audio players
"GPS"	Category:GPS receivers
"internet radio"	Category:Internet radio receivers
"podcast"	Category:Podcast players (new)
"Mono", "Stereo", "2.1", etc	none (unnecessary information)
"players", "recorders", "receivers"	none (ambiguous)
"boomboxes"	Category:Boomboxes

Omphalographer (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started burning down some of these categories. They're incredibly sparse - in at least one case, recategorizing a single file (File:Pioneer AVIC-BZ500.jpg) has emptied out over a dozen categories which described it in different ways. Omphalographer (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this category supposed to be? It has no parent categories, and looking at its members I can't see what they have to do with the category name, which is Italian for "algae". Am I misunderstanding even what language was used for the category name? Jmabel ! talk 08:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esta foto nunca fue autorizada por mi persona, misma foto fue subida por mi expareja para desprestigiarme y quedarse con la patria potestad de mis hijos, por lo que se presentó denuncia penal por ley Olimpia y pornografía de venganza en Ciudad Guzmán Jalisco, bajo averiguación previa 3048/2021, dentro de la misma se me otorgaron Medidas de protección otorgadas por la fiscalia del Estado de Jalisco. Por lo que solicito sea Elimina. 2806:261:490:8719:A908:ADAB:1352:F899 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Female buttocks into Category:Female human buttocks. I presume the comment above is in regard to the one file directly in this directory, which is already nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cum shot on butt.jpg. Presuming that DR will be concluded shortly in favor of deletion, that file will be gone and there will be nothing in this category except Category:Female human buttocks. I propose that this category be merged into that one, regardless of the DR outcome, as this level is unnecessary. Josh (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Saint Leonard. The whole category tree was created (apparently, I didn't check every single category) by @Themightyquill: . I assume the starting point was this discussion, which is still marked as open in Category:Saint Leonard, but the name change was only partially implemented and now we have two parallel category trees for the same saint. This needs to be fixed, with one name or the other (either is fine by me). Syrio posso aiutare? 13:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of people named Saint Leonard, using Category:Leonard of Noblac for this one saint seems obvious. But actually correctly sorting all the content that has been placed in Category:Saint Leonard and its subcategories over the years is less easy. First step is to change the wikidata links attached Category:Saint Leonard toward that disambiguation page. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what seems obvious to me is that you cannot start forking such a big category and then leave it halfway done like that.

Moving the images is non that difficult anyway: while there are several saints with the name, "the" saint Leonard is Leonard of Noblac, and even without assuming that everything in that category is about him, he can be easily linked to most of them. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 13:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And all subcategories. These are kept track of in other places, such as Wikidata and Wikisource itself, and I am skeptical that we need an extra layer of categorization here. It seems like more work than it's worth (considering we have tens of thousands of scans to account for in this categorization project). SnowyCinema (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. The only way that these categories would be viable on Commons would be if someone were running a bot to keep the statuses in sync -- there are hundreds of thousands of transcribed texts on the English Wikisource alone; maintaining the statuses through manual edits on Commons is out of the question. Omphalographer (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category currently appears to be a conflation of at least two people of this name, possibly even more. Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support w:William Ward is a DAB but I'm not sure which this is for. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If we make it a DAB here, it should include Category:William Ward (American artist) (no en-wiki equivalent); I ran into it when I was adding that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]