Category:Anti movements

This whole "anti movement" thing seems nonsensical and goes against the guideline that categories shouldn't be ambiguous. It also seems to be leading to a LOT of clearly bad categorization and/or over-categorization. Like this is in a category for criticism and movements. Then Category:Anti-communism is as well Category:Criticism of communism. Which just leads back to Category:Criticisms after two parent categories. A separate, but just as important issue, is if there's such thing as a "criticism of communism" that isn't inherently "anti-communist." Let alone which one is the actual "movement"? The criticism or the "anti" (whatever that is).

Then you have categories like Category:Anti-communists that are included in Category:Anti-communism even though people aren't movements or ideologies. But that aside, everyone who isn't a communist is "anti-communist." So who exactly should or shouldn't go in the category? I have no clue and doesn't seem like anyone else does either since it contains a bunch of subcats for random people that have no connection with each other what-so-ever outside of not being communists. Sure, Ayn Rand came up with objectivism, which is pro-capitalism (a system inherently anti-communist) but what ACTUAL connection does she have to someone like Dóra Dúró? Let alone what connection do either of them have to Adolf Hitler?

So I think all these "anti" categories should either be up-merged and deleted or at least extremely cut back and not used as arbitrary categories for things or people that don't have an ACTUALLY connection. At the end of the day categories for "things that aren't X" don't make any sense and go against the guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't merge all "anti-X" to "criticism of X". Topics like Category:Abolitionism, Category:Euroscepticism and Category:Alter-globalisation are well-established, and should be kept. I make the following proposal based on nuances:

• "Anti-Xism" → "criticism of Xism" (like Category:Anti-capitalism → Category:Criticism of capitalism)
• "Anti-X", "Anti-X activism" or "anti-X movement" → "criticism of X" (like Category:Anti-copyright → Category:Criticism of copyright)
• Category:Anti-caste movements → Category:Criticism of caste system
• Category:Anti-nuclear movement → Category:Criticism of nuclear technology

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: That sounds like a reasonable compromise. I'll probably wait a few weeks to see if anyone else comments and then implement it if there's no objections. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Opposition movements alike Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Opposition. Abesca (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Opposition is more than being critical of something. w:Abram Hoffer was critical of psychiatry and modern medicine but was a psychiatrist and modern medical doctor himself. Abesca (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photographs from Spaarnestad Photo before 1929

I browsed and found this, their website https://beeldbank.spaarnestadphoto.com/ now NO LONGER exists! Even its main domain - spaarnestadphoto.com/ is only redirecting to a GoDaddy page saying the domain itself is being for sale now. Maybe all original URL to said defunct website to be either removed, or if available, replaced with an Internet Archive's (archive.org) links instead. 84.40.119.74 21:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact that Foundation Spaarnestad Photo ceased operations as of 1 April 2024 is no news. It had been announced by Spaarnestad Photo itself at the start of 2024, and there was a follow-up message by Dutch National Archives (in Dutch) in April 2024. In short: the collection of Spaarnestad Photo contains 15 Million photographs; photos and negatives are currently under supervision of Dutch National Archives; the collection will remain intact; photos will gradually be hosted on the website of Nationaal Archief. Links will be replaced when possible. There are no links at archive.org, as far as I know. I see no reason to change the name of this category. Vysotsky (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:LGBT pride by city

LGBT Pride is a yearly parade, obviously. It's not really clear what "LGBT pride" with the lowercase "pride" is though and a lot of these subcats seem to be for organizations that put on pride parades, not the actual parades per se. There's also already Category:LGBT events, which this seems to have some (probably more like a lot) of overlap with. So I think this category should either be merged to one for LGBT organizations by city and the actual pride events put in Category:LGBT events by city or something else should be done with it. This category is clearly nonsense with how it's currently named and organized though. Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, "pride" isn't necessarily only parades. Pride festivals and events are also LGBTQ Pride. This feels unnecessary and confusing Sock-the-guy (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sock-the-guy: I'm aware of the general idea of LGBTQ pride. The confusing part is that the definition for the parent category is an "annual parade celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer" and it's a subcategory of multiple ones for festivals. But this also contains categories for "LGBT organizations" called "Pride." An organization obviously isn't an event and usually they are categorized differently. Or did you just not bother reading that part of my original message? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to be rude here. It makes sense to me that organizations which put on pride would be in the pride category. Sock-the-guy (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just asking so I could rephrase it or something if the original wasn't clear. Since I know I can ramble sometimes. There's no need to assume bad faith. Anyway, a category for LBGTQ organizations sure. I assume that would be Category:LGBT organizations. Maybe there should be a category specifically for "pride organizations" but I don't think it makes sense to have them in one for festivals instead. Although I'd argue the idea of a "pride organizations" isn't a thing to begin with. So really, just moving the categories to Category:LGBT organizations would do IMO but then I assume people would have an issue with and revert because the organizations have "pride" in their names, and of anything with the word pride must be related to and/or categorized with pride events right? Ergo, this CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Faculty

This is just a synonym of parent Category:Academics. An academic does peer-reviewed research and/or teaches in post-secondary education. I was cleaning up Wikidata entries, and noticed two similar entries there, that should be merged, have different categories. Note that on en wiki faculty is a disambig that points to academic=academic staff. And here the larger Academics parent cat lists many faculty subcategories. We should probably rename all "Faculty" subcategories to "Academics" after upmerging this one. Note that Category:Faculty by country should be renamed (not merged to Category:Academics by country) since if you look at what's inside, it's de facto Faculty/Academics by school by country (a double level of categorization). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

But do faculties work in universities / colleges or do they also work in high schools and grammar schools? Nakonana (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, terms like "academics" and "faculty" tend to be applicable to only higher education institutions. But we are currently concerned with "faculty" being a mere collective term for "academics", and we don't need to go into specifics now. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

But then, why are there high schools and grammar schools in that category? Could it be that the term faculty has different meaning in other languages, but the English term sounds close enough, so that people think it has the same meaning in English as in their mother tongue and that's why they pick this category for their files, and that's how high schools and grammar schools ended up in that category? If that's the case, then the category isn't de facto used in a synonymous way to "academics", because there are no academics in high schools and grammar schools (at least in my understanding of what constitutes a high school/grammar school). I mean, even in English, faculty doesn't necessarily mean "academic staff": Faculty (division). Nakonana (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge Category:Faculty into Category:Academics. The former is a collective term, and the latter is an individual term, similar to Category:Staff/Category:Workers. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/12/Category:Faculty by university or college by country.  Support merging of Category:Faculty into Category:Academics, essentially same thing, plus the term "faculty" is highly ambiguous and misleading en:wikt:faculty#Noun. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I am against merging these two categories. In the territory of the former Soviet Union (now more than 15 different countries and more than 20 language sections of Wikipedia), the words Academic and Faculty (Teaching Staff) have completely different meanings. Academic is the highest degree of a scientist. And teachers of colleges and institutes cannot be academic. Sorry for my English level, I use Google Translate. Tatiana Markina 12:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC) --Tatiana Markina 12:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Categorization must be based on distinct subjects, not on flaws of languages. As written above, I oppose the term "faculty" because it's broken in English. Do NOT principally oppose separate categories for "high academics" and "low teachers" but unsure whether the latter are in scope at all. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from Wales by century

Can someone please alter the template so the ancient categories are not put in the United Kingdom? Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose categories are based on current geographical boundaries for the most part. UK is where one should find old Welsh categories.DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Not when it comes to issues of authorship. Rathfelder (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, even in those cases? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

So you would abolish Category:Books from Korea and Category:Books from the German Democratic Republic as they no longer exist? We have to exercise judgement about the intersections between history and geography. Category:Wales in the 13th century was certainly not part of the United Kingdom. Rathfelder (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you trying to read the opposite of what I said?? Books from Korea should contain Books from South Korea and Books from North Korea as subcats; Books from the GDR should be a subcat of Books of Germany.

Let's just not have a UK category for back then- there was no UK. Let's not categorise british history stuff into british categories- if there is a 7th century british artifact, then it obviously should go in Wessexian, or Northumbrian, or Anglian, instead of British or English, given that the Kingdom of England didn't exist- people trying to find said articats be damned? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition in London

I don't know if it's a wider issue for similar categories or not, but this one is in a sub-category of ones for destroyed buildings and demolitions. Yet if I look at the images in here, only an extremely small amount of them to be of destroyed buildings. Let alone demolitions. Sure, maybe some of the buildings WERE demolished at some point but I don't think it makes sense to have images of non-destroyed buildings that don't show a demolition in the categories for them anyway. So I was thinking I'd category of what shouldn't be in here, as that would be the easy fix, but then where to put the images? There doesn't seem to be a specific category for "images of no longer exiting buildings that are still in normal shape and aren't actively being destroyed" or whatever.

Thinking about it maybe this is one of those category systems that violates the rule against using categories as stores of basic facts that have nothing to do with the images in them. Who knows. So what to do. Does anyone have any ideas? Adamant1 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Maybe somewhere in Category:No longer existent subjects? Most of the subcats there use the terms defunct, extinct, or former, which don't seem to apply here, but there is Category:No longer existent ships. Maybe a similar category for buildings, and probably for structures as well. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wood preservation

I propose to merge Category:Wood preservation with Category:Timber preservation --NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox cemeteries by country

• Rename this and the child categories as "Eastern Orthodox" to distinguish them from "Oriental Orthodox". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Orthodox crosses by country

• Rename this and the child categories as "Eastern Orthodox" to distinguish them from "Oriental Orthodox". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Slavic liturgy

• Rename to "Eastern Orthodox Slavic liturgy" or to "Eastern Orthodox liturgy (Slavic traditition)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:17th-century works in the United Kingdom

There was no United Kingdom in the 17th century Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep This is for works in the United Kingdom, not works of the United Kingdom. There are things that were created before the UK existed that are now in the UK. Examples include much of what's in the British Museum, such as the Egyptian sarcophagi, the Parthenon marbles, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by status

The category's name implies it encompasses all types of status, but the description clarifies it is specifically about social status and links to that Wikipedia article. A clear consensus on the category's scope is needed to resolve this ambiguity, whether by a name change or a change in the description. Nebula84912 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete Per the selectivity principle "We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." Even if the category was changed to "social status" it would be totally meaningless and violate the guideline. Since things like children and traitors don't ultimately have anything to do with each other. I'm sure 99% of the categories in here are already in much better ones anyway. But categorizing things by status (or social status) is totally meaningless. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

   Delete If that is the case, then I support the deletion. Nebula84912 (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I assume this would involve getting rid of the hundreds (or more, I haven't counted exactly) of by-status categories related to people, maybe we need to figure out how to group the various subcategories -- or decide that they don't need grouping.

I think some could just be removed from the various by-status categories: anonymous people, campers, customers, faculty, bound people, left-handed people, and more.

Some we might want to group somehow: adopted people, displaced persons, homeless people, people burning, volunteers, and more.

This is without even looking at what's in the metcats that are subcats here. What do y'all think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Kind of related CfD BTW Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:People by behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Album Amicorum

What's the relationship between Category:Album Amicorum and Category:Stammbuch? Stammbuch was wikidata links to en:Album amicorum and to de:Stammbuch (Freundschaftsalbum) (which both describe the two words as synoyms) but de:Stammbuch is a disambiguation page which includes other types of these registers, such as en:Familienstammbuch. Yet Category:Stammbuch is a subcategory of both Category:Album Amicorum and Category:Culture of Göttingen. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

A more correct link for the German category would be de:w:Poesiealbum, I think. These albums were popular to write little personal whishes, mostly in the form of short verses or poems, to family and friends.

I don't know if the English language ever had a similar tradition, as I see we only have the Wikipedia article in Dutch and German. I think the cats in the Stammbuch (German name) cat can be included in the Album Amicorum (Latin name) cat, or they can be merged into Category:Poesiealbum, since this is the synonym used in both Dutch and German (see Wikipedia article titels). Ciell (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@DanielleJWiki maybe you can help here: is there a clear distinction between Album Amicorums, poesieablums and Stammbucher that can help improve the category structure for these images? Ciell (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Not as common in the English world, maybe but yes, they exist, and images are in Category:Autograph books. -- Themightyquill (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@OlafJanssen can you maybe share an additional perspective? Ciell (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this category was created originally to collect the different Album Amicorums that are in the collection of the Dutch National Library (KB). Those albums are defined mostly as 'friendship books': 'a friendship album containing handwritten texts by friends and acquaintances.'. So in this case it's something else than a "Poesiealbum", although there are some overlaps. I could imagine maybe getting the Stammbucher out of this category into it's own thing. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Toplessness

I am opening this discussion to seek community consensus on the proper categorization of toplessness, specifically whether it should be classified as a subcategory of nudity, as is the current practice. This topic has been a point of repeated debate (e.g., recently here), and a clear resolution is needed to ensure the category tree is consistent. The current structure, Nudity → Partial Nudity → Toplessness, implies that a topless person is, by definition, "partially nude" and therefore "nude." This classification is the source of the disagreement. Nebula84912 (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't get it: it is NOT a direct subcategory of nudity since it's in the "Partial nudity" category. So where is the problem??!! Partial nudity is a partial...nudity!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

TwoWings, the term "partial nudity" describes a state where some parts of the body are uncovered while others are clothed. Toplessness is the practice of having the upper body, specifically the chest and breasts, uncovered. Therefore, by definition, toplessness falls under the category of partial nudity, as the unclothed upper body is nude, contrasting with the clothed lower body. In the discussion that I linked Infrogmation argued that the toplessness, that means having the chest not covered, is not nudity and therefore should not be categorized as such. Nebula84912 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

And nudity is the state of being in which a human is without clothing. Partial nudity is a direct subcategory here because is directly categorized as nudity. Nebula84912 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

If the part of the body that is uncovered by being topless is not considered nude, therefore is not partial nudity because the body is not partially nude and that category should be removed. Nebula84912 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912 The term "nudity" is used rather broadly here, and we have Category:Full nudity (the usual meaning of "nudity") as well as Category:Partial nudity under the category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Sbb1413, the category "Full nudity" is categorized as "Nudity," and I am not challenging the broad aspect of the primary category. Both categories are directly related to the first and are categorized as such. The question is whether toplessness (that means having the upper body uncovered) is a form of nudity or not. I understand that the primary category is broad, that's why I tried to categorize as such the image discussed in the talk page that I linked. Toplessness is currently categorized as a form of partial nudity, which is itself a type of nudity. However, if the upper body is not considered nude when uncovered, then it should not be categorized as nudity at all, as no part of the body is nude (either partially or fully). The arguments for not considering toplessness a form of nudity were made by Infrogmation in the discussion that I linked. Nebula84912 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe the question is "is it nudity if a person is topless?". And the answer differs from place to place- in most places, male toplessness is usually not considered to be a form of nudity (or even an issue for a vast majority of places), where female toplessness is usually considered a form of nudity. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking at it that way seems subjective, determined by a particular morality. Commons should look at things more objectively. Nudity on Commons seems to be determined by how much of the torso is covered or uncovered. That could also be seen as subjective, though, because different cultures have different ideas of which body parts should be covered. Maybe we need to define nudity as having the torso uncovered, toplessness as having the upper part of the torso uncovered (or at least the front of the upper part, since people don't seem to be as bothered about backs), and bottomlessness as having the lower part of the torso uncovered, the last two being partial nudity. Note that I say covered/uncovered, not clothed/unclothed, because sometimes the parts in question are covered by a drape or something other than clothing. For example, would you call this a nude painting?

Of course, my viewpoint is from a Western culture, so it may not reflect other cultures. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no such thing as objectivity here though- everything is determined by morality. I also  Support your way to do it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

We're not here to remake the world and the vocabulary. This is common sense to admit that toplessness and bottomlessness are predominantly considered as nudity, even though there are different cultural visions. If you follow that cultural logic, you may say "nudity" doesn't any meaning in some cultures i.e. that there's no universal definition of that concept. If you think like that, we may delete "nudity" categories since it's a subjective point of view! Come on, be reasonable, that discussion is absurd! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Currently Category:Barefoot and its subcategories, like Category:Barefoot men, are currently classified under nudity. On Commons, the term "nudity" is thus used literally to mean "unclothed," disregarding any cultural context. However, there is no explicit consensus on whether this is how the term is interpreted here. Establishing one would prevent further confusion. Nebula84912 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Luster terminals

Per talk page, faulty term, unclear scope, also Category:Clamp connections. Needs clean-up, including connected WikiData items. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:British war cemetery Südwestkirchhof (Stahnsdorf)

This category was recently moved from Category:Berlin South-Western Cemetery and this request is to move it back to it's official name. The official name is used by the sources noted in it's wikidata profile (Q821320). it's also not a British cemetery but a commonwealth cemetery with soldiers from multiple commonwealth countries. Labattblueboy (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Agree Move back per @Labattblueboy.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20241114143540/https://www.cwgc.org/visit-us/find-cemeteries-memorials/cemetery-details/90900/berlin-south-western-cemetery/ --

Ooligan (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Quality images of buffalos

"Buffalos", which one? Category:Water buffalo, Category:Syncerus (African buffalo), or Category:Bison? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 15:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Category should be deleted. Category:Quality images of Syncerus caffer etc is best Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
•  Comment @Charlesjsharp and Sbb1413: Most images in this category appear to be of water buffalo, which has their own main cat at Category:Water buffalo, and doesn't yet have its own QI category. Is it alright if I rename this category and move the images of water buffalo there? (I'll pay attention to not move images there of different kinds of buffalo). ReneeWrites (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Films by producer

Does anyone on Commons find this type of categorization useful? Categories are intended to aid navigation of a collection of media, not to organize facts for encyclopedic structuring. A category like Category:Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck does not help describe the actual media files it contains. The posters, stills, or promotional materials rarely depict or reference Zanuck himself. The role is administrative: producers oversee a film's financing, logistics and overall project management, but they are not responsible for its creative vision. A producer's name may occasionally appear in a credit block, but such passing mentions do not make the file descriptively about the producer. Their role isn't meaningfully reflected in the content of the media. This kind of relational grouping may belong on Wikipedia, but it offers little value for users browsing visual content and doesn't serve Commons' core function as a media library. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons explicitly aims to be a media repository for all Wikimedia projects, not just a visual art gallery. Its scope includes media files that are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". (Commons:Project scope) This extends beyond direct visual depiction to include contextual information like production roles (e.g., producers, studios) that help users understand a media file's origin and relevance. Categories like Category:Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck are valid because they provide encyclopedic context essential for Wikipedia and other sister projects. For example, a Wikipedia article about Zanuck would benefit from easily accessible media files related to his work, even if he is not visually depicted in every poster or still.

The platform explicitly allows categories that organize media based on non-visual attributes (e.g., copyright status, source, creator). (COM:CATPRI) This includes administrative roles like producers, as they contribute to the educational value of media by clarifying its context and provenance. Nebula84912 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a straight-up AI-generated response lol. It's vague and the conclusion in the final sentence is not supported by what precedes it. How is the citation of COM:EDUSE relevant to the point made? That is discussing the scope of files, not categories. Categories are meant to aid users navigate media, not catalog varying film credits. We are not Wikidata, nor IMDb. I am not sure how providing "encyclopedic context essential for Wikipedia and other sister projects" automatically qualifies a category as "valid" for Commons. That reasoning could apply to every Wikipedia category, and there are already far too many Wikipedia film categories being replicated onto Commons for no good reason other than to replicate what is in Wikipedia articles. And mostly created by IP users. See Category:Hairspray (2007 film), Category:The Rescuers, etc. I'm also not sure how "a Wikipedia article about Zanuck would benefit from easily accessible media files related to his work, even if he is not visually depicted in every poster or still". He is not visually depicted in any poster or still at all. There are an exceptionally small number of images on Commons which really, truly depict the producer of a film. So exceptional that, so far, I have found none. The same applies to executive producers, editors, production designers, etc. What is written at COM:CATPRI also does not suggest that these "non-visual attributes" are simply valid because they "contribute to the educational value of media by clarifying its context and provenance". Whatever the AI meant by that. Producers are not the "creator" (director/studio) nor the source, or copyright. They are just one of many involved involved in a project. And often one of many producers. Οἶδα (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

COM:EDUSE, and all Commons:Project scope, state that the scope of Wikimedia Commons is educational. And this is relevant because the claim that only artistic merit is relevant to Commons is contradicted by this principle. Categories are linked to categories in sister projects via Wikidata. Categories like "Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck" are useful for self-education and for searching for content with a similar scope across other projects, and vice versa. If these categories are educational and useful for both this project and its sister projects, then they are valid according to Commons:Project scope, which explicitly states that the project's aim is educational AND "that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." Categories are meant to help users navigate media, and this category clearly helps find media related to films that were produced by a specific producer.

COM:CATPRI provides examples of categories whose purpose is to clarify the context and provenance of the media they contain. For instance, "Category:Media by source – This category is the global common root for media files categorized by their SOURCE, indicating where they come from (books, collections, sites, etc.)." A photograph sourced from a news media is categorized as such, but these sites most times play an administrative rather than a creative role; they are not necessarily the "creators" of that media.

That is simply my writing style and the policies I have linked clearly support this argument. Please, don't be condescending. Commons:Civility Nebula84912 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I didn't cite COM:EDUSE; I cited Commons:Project scope. I quoted a part of it about files to exemplify that the project's purpose is educational and not merely for "browsing visual content." That's what I meant when I said that Commons is "not just a visual art gallery." But my response itself is about the whole of Commons:Project scope. Sorry to be overly formal, but I don't regard WikiProjects as social media, and because of that, I feel compelled to be formal. Nebula84912 (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You quoted "realistically useful for an educational purpose", which is COM:EDUSE. So yes, that is the "part of it" that you were citing. But again, that is discussing the scope of files, not the "validity" of categories. Οἶδα (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted that and I cited Commons:Project scope that starts with:

"The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

• that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
• that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation."

"The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

I should clarify again that my intention was to direct you to that policy. The quote was merely an exemplification that the project is not just a visual gallery. You stated that "producers are not responsible for its creative vision. A producer's name may occasionally appear in a credit block, but such passing mentions do not make the file descriptively about the producer." The point of the quote I provided is that files on Wikimedia Commons are for educational purposes, so it is their educational value that matters, not their creative vision. Therefore, arguing about the artistic role of a producer is irrelevant in this context. Nebula84912 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Saying that the producer's artistic role is irrelevant because only "educational value" matters effectively removes any standard for what qualifies a category hierarchy beyond subjective usefulness. Commons categories are not kept just because its relational grouping can be said to "provide knowledge" in some abstract way. Can you cite any precedent or policy discussion where the community has endorsed such an expansive reading of "educational" specifically for category structuring on Commons? Because this is just an endlessly circular discussion because you're using the broadest possible interpretation of "educational" which conveniently shuts down the fundamental issue I've raised: there are an exceptionally small number of images, if any, in these categories that genuinely depict or are meaningfully "about" a film's producer. This effectively strips categorization of the descriptive and navigational role it is intended to serve, and turns it into a vague, catch-all rationale for importing all relational data that belongs elsewhere. Οἶδα (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I already provide the policy at the beginning of the discussion. Commons:Project scope states that Commons categories are for advance Commons Wikimedia¿s aim as a educational platform and repository of media for other sister projects, and as long they are in the scope of that aim are acceptable.

"there are an exceptionally small number of images" Category:Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck has 7 files and 44 subcategories with sub-subcategories and files. That is not a small number. Nebula84912 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

We do not automatically keep categories for every topic that someone arbitrarily considers to be "educational and useful for both this project and its sister projects". Nowhere in Commons:Project scope is this suggestion of "educational" applied to categories. It is discussing the purpose of the files which Commons hosts. And your quotation of "acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation" is contextually confusing. That is a basic statement which fully quotes as follows: "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." This is about the hosting of media files that can be reused across projects, not about the categories and structuring used by these other projects. You are misappropriating a general mission statement into a justification for duplicating any given sister project category into Commons. That is not supported by policy or consensus.

And the fact that Commons categorizes media by its source is not analogous. Producers are not the publisher, distributor, or creator of the media. We do not extend that understanding of source categorization beyond its scope. If we did, we would be obligated to recreate every Wikipedia category and every relationship recorded in Wikidata. We would be operating a system of categorization that factors in each and every background entity involved in the creation of a subject. That is completely peripheral and not useful for navigating a collection of media. Again, producers are not the author/creator of a film. That is typically considered to be the director, who is responsible for the creative vision and execution. Or the studio, which is responsible for originating a film and is the original owner. Producers are not the source, nor the copyright etc. They are important, for sure. But again, they are just one of many involved in a project. And are often one of many credited producers alongside editors, production designers, actors, etc. Not to mention how many producers have gone completely uncredited or had uncertain and varying degrees of involvement. The film Category:Argentina, 1985 has 8 different producers. After all: these days, the producing credit can mean next to nothing.

The issue remains that there are an exceptionally small number of images on Commons which really, truly depict the producer of a film. "Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck" may be a "valid" relational grouping for an encylopedia or database, but that does not mean the media files inside this Commons category are meaningfully about him, or that the category aids navigation based on the file's content. This does not "clarify the context and provenance" of the media, it just catalogs film credits, which may be appropriate for Wikidata or Wikipedia, but does little to improve the navigation of files on Commons. Categories are intended to describe the content of files and non-visual attributes such as creator, source, location, date of creation, medium, or format. They are not intended to replicate production metadata that is not visually depicted in the media or that the media is not descriptively about. We are talking about categories whose sole content is movie posters, trailer screenshots, publicity stills, logos and other promotional materials. These are no more a meaningful depiction of a film's producer than they are of the studio marketing exec that coordinated and financed these materials. If producers qualify as part of the provenance of these files, then so would every executive producer, co-executive producer, associate producer, line producer, production manager, financier, assistant director, or casting director credited in a film's production. These background roles are not a reflection of the authorship, ownership, or holding of a film (read: provenance). These are just credits, they are not the director, not the studio, not a distributor, and not an archive. Οἶδα (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope is about all the Commons Wikimedia project. It states that educational applies to everything in the project because that is the aim of the project. "Project scope" means the "scope" of all the project.

"Nowhere in Commons:Project scope is this suggestion of "educational" applied to categories." It is in the section Scope part 2: Pages, galleries and categories.

The purpose of pages, galleries and categories is to support Commons' aims. Any page/gallery/category that does not fulfill that purpose is out of scope. Galleries and categories having no media file content are generally considered out of scope unless there is a particular reason for retaining them (e.g. a useful redirect).

The aims of Commons is educational and to serve as a common repository to sister projects, every category that supports the project's aim is acceptable. Nebula84912 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Except your conclusion is that "every category that supports the project's aim is acceptable", which overextends the policy beyond what it actually says. By that logic, any category that someone arbitrarily deems "educational" or vaguely useful to a sister project would be automatically in scope. That would justify importing nearly every Wikipedia category or Wikidata relation into Commons, regardless of whether it actually aids navigation or describes the content of a collection of files on Commons. You keep ignoring this fact and shifting the discussion into vague circles that avoids the logical conclusion of your thought. Οἶδα (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

This project and other sister projects are based on consensus, things are not deemed arbitrarily. It is justifiable as long the community consensus says is justifiable. And we are not obligated to import anything, the decision to import or not content of other sister projects is based on if it advances or not the aim of this project. Accusing me of bad faith is uncivil, stop. Read Commons:Civility Nebula84912 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

"And the fact that Commons categorizes media by its source is not analogous." Your argument was that the role of producers is administrative. A news media company that employs a photographer to take a picture is not creating anything. And having a category for photographs from a news media company doesn't say anything about what the pictures are about. They can be about anything. So this kind of categories are just for context and provenance. If I am making a project, investigation, article, essay, etc. about film production, a category with media about films produced by a certain producer can help me illustrate the investigation; it gives me context. And it can give me an idea of what kind of media a certain producer usually produces, which is educational. If I want to know the provenance of a film, knowing about the producer helps because they are the ones who oversee all the publishing, distribution, and creation of the given media. They are a piece of the chain in the creative process that can help to give context when other pieces are missing. Nobody is asking to change the scope of Category:Media by source; I'm just using it as an example of categories that do not imply creative input. And I used the term "provenance" to mean the documented history of a particular medium's life. But I'm not talking in the legal sense, like copyright law, but in an educational one. Nebula84912 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

You are using the "Media by source" categorization, a well-established, narrowly defined category, as if it is some broad precedent to justify any other form of categorization that has no clear reflection in the media itself. As if its existence therefore automatically validates every non-visual/non-creative attribute in categorization. This is a false equivalence. Categorization by source reflects the direct origin or provider of the media files, a concrete and verifiable attribute. That is central to a given file's provenance. A news media source may not be the photographer, but it is the entity that published, disseminated, or provided the image. A producer's credit might also be a background role, also often removed from the creative or visual aspects of a film, and also very often being shared among multiple individuals and reflective of uncertain and varying, sometimes meaningless, degrees of involvement. But they are not the source. Producers do not create, publish/distribute/provide or own the media files found on Commons. That kind of vague and inconsistent association is not equivalent to "Media by source", and treating it as such is inappropriate, as would be treating it as an open door for other categories that "don't say anything about what the pictures are about" and are "just for context". You say they "oversee all the publishing, distribution, and creation". So then by that logic, we should also be creating Commons categories like Category:Books by managing editor, Category:Books by acquisition editor, Category:Books by literary agent, Category:Books by marketing manager, Category:Books by typesetter, Category:Books by printing technician etc, people who may have overseen all or parts of a book's production, distribution, or publication. But we don't, because Commons does not arbitrarily categorize based on background roles with such indirect or administrative involvement. It is based on the content, authorship, subject, or verifiable source of the media file itself. Producers may play an important role in shaping a project, but that doesn't make them the source of the media or justify categorizing a collection of media under their name. We already have Category:Films by director and Category:Films by studio, as we do Category:Books by author and Category:Books by publisher. That is sufficient and aligned with the core function of categories on Commons.

The problem here is you are addressing selective parts of my argument while circularly sidestepping several of the central points I've raised. In a situtation as this, I am left to more or less repeat myself: "Films produced by Darryl F. Zanuck" may be a "valid" relational grouping for an encylopedia or database, but that does not mean the media files inside this Commons category are meaningfully about him, or that the category aids navigation based on the file's content. This does not "clarify the context and provenance" of the media, it just catalogs film credits, which may be appropriate for Wikidata or Wikipedia, but does little to improve the navigation of files on Commons. Categories are intended to describe the content of files and non-visual attributes such as creator, source, location, date of creation, medium, or format. They are not intended to replicate production metadata that is not visually depicted in the media or that the media is not descriptively about. We are talking about categories whose sole content is movie posters, trailer screenshots, publicity stills, logos and other promotional materials. These are no more a meaningful depiction of a film's producer than they are of the studio marketing exec that coordinated and financed these materials. They were not created by them, do not depict them, are not distributed or published by them, and are not descriptively about them. Their name may appear in small print in a credit block, but that does not establish authorship, ownership, or source. If producers qualify as part of the provenance of these files, then so would every executive producer, co-executive producer, associate producer, line producer, production manager, financier, assistant director, or casting director credited in a film's production. All are "pieces of the chain in the creative process" that anyone can arbitrarily claim "helps to give context" and aid them in a "project, investigation, article, essay, etc. about film production." They are not a reflection of the authorship, ownership, or holding of a film (read: provenance). These categories are not about provenance, they are just metadata of production credits. Producers are not the director, not the studio, not a distributor, and not an archive. That is what provenance is: the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object. What is being grouped in these subcategories isn't media about a producer, nor created by one, nor even sourced from one. It's just a list of films they were involved with. That belongs on an encylopedia like Wikipedia or a database of credits like IMDb. This is really a pointless conversation. Every form of categorization can be justified as an "educational one" by whoever finds it personally relevant. Such as Category:Films by actor and Category:Cast members, except they were deleted. Commons categiories are not going to be reduced to a database of metadata, where any related credit justifies a category. Reframing the "educational" in Commons' aims to mean that any category is valid simply because it can be construed as "providing knowledge" or "useful for self-education" just derails the discussion and completely dismisses the actual purpose of categories and the standards that keep Commons useable and navigable. Commons' mission broadly supports the collection of educational media, but using that to justify this category makes the concept of "educational value" so vague and subjective that it can be used to justify virtually anything, rendering policy meaningless. Categorization on Commons is not a reflection of all possible relationships or metadata associated with a subject. It is a system for organizing files in a way that aids user navigation and accurately reflects the file's content, authorship, and source. That principle is widely understood in practice and supported by community consensus, unlike the expansive, self-justifying interpretation you're proposing here.

And please let's stop repeating the same arguments over and over and over. It is time to give space to other voices in the discussion, Nebula84912. There are now three separate discussion strands between us. This is not helping. The opinions of both you and I is already developed enough. Anything further at this point is just noise that crowds out other voices in the discussion. I am done. Οἶδα (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

"You are using the "Media by source" categorization, a well-established, narrowly defined category, as if it is some broad precedent to justify any other form of categorization that has no clear reflection in the media itself." No, I am pointing to Commons:Project scope, which states that artistic merit is not what is relevant to the aim of Wikimedia Commons. I am giving examples from COM:CATPRI, one of which is Category:Media by source and its subcategories, which are top-level categories of CommonsRoot. Categories are intended to group related pages and media, but there is no precedent stating that this relation must be based on artistic merit.

"being shared among multiple individuals and reflective of uncertain and varying, sometimes meaningless, degrees of involvement." Unless you are aware of a producer who is falsely credited as responsible for managing a project, then this is purely speculative. If you have an example, you should challenge the specific categorization for that particular film where you have proof.

"So then by that logic, we should also be creating Commons categories like" We can create as many categories as we deem necessary to advance the aims of Wikimedia Commons. If we deem those categories useful for educational purposes and for helping other sister projects, then we create them.

"If producers qualify as part of the provenance of these files, then so would every executive producer, co-executive producer, associate producer, line producer, production manager, financier, assistant director, or casting director credited in a film's production." It depends from person to person and on how many notable individuals exist to justify a category. A notable person who is widely reported as part of a project and has an important role, such as a producer who oversees the production, distribution, and creation of a film, can have a category for that film. If there are many such people, you can create a category for those roles, like Category:Films by producer.

I used the term "provenance" to mean the documented history of a particular medium's life in an educational sense. One example of the context and provenance of a producer's role in a film is the management of its budget. Many films have been a commercial success or failure due to being underfunded or having an overbloated budget, even when they were critically acclaimed by the public and critics. Such cases have bankrupted studios and affected the careers of directors and the production of further films in the same series. A case in point is John Wick, which was almost never created due to a lack of funding. Eva Longoria invested $6 million at the last minute to save the film and is credited as a producer because of that. If bad management can doom a film's existence and success, then the argument that producers do not play a significant role in its creation is not sound. The production of a film is part of its creation. Someone trying to educate themselves about film production can benefit from easy access to media related to films produced by a certain individual, as I stated. The context is about the film industry and production. The category is not broad, it is quite specific about what should be included. You may not be interested in that because it doesn't have artistic merit, but someone who is investigating it might be.

The category Film producers is a subcategory of Film production, which is a subcategory of Industry; a CommonsRoot category. These categories are not about artistry but about industry; therefore, artistic merit is again irrelevant. What is relevant, as I said, is educational merit. I want to ensure we understand each other clearly, and I'm happy to clarify my points further if needed. Nebula84912 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per precedent at other movie metadata CfDs. Information about the cast and production staff of a film is best catalogued at Wikidata, where it can be used by other projects (including by Commons). Duplicating this work within the Commons category system is not productive. Omphalographer (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

If one can easily access the related media through Wikidata, then I am in favor of the category removal. Nebula84912 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked up Darryl F. Zanuck's Wikidata page, but it doesn't list the films he produced. While individual film pages on Wikidata credit their producers, there's no way to search for all media related to a specific producer. This means you must already know which films a producer worked on to find them, making the data difficult to use for this purpose. Nebula84912 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I realized that hidden categories are marked as "Non-topical/index." If "Category:Films by producer" and its subcategories are non-topical to the media they contain, then these categories should have the corresponding template that mark them as such. Nebula84912 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete; another unnecessary meta-categorization created by anons who liked to create categories, apparently. Trivialist (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Giraffa camelopardalis in Kenya

This category is used for all giraffes in Kenya, however, changes in giraffe taxonomy have rendered the category name inaccurate. Three species and several more subspecies of giraffe are now recognised in Kenya, not just G. camelopardis. I would propose changing this and any other categories using the older, broader circumscription of G. camelopardalis be changed to simply use the common name giraffe. Apologies if I have done this wrong, I am very new to category discussions on Commons Ethmostigmus (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer the scientific name Giraffa instead. Kersti (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:People of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

• Rename to Category:People of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth per English grammar rules and to use the en-dash (as opposed to the hyphen) per the standdard in Wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

• Rename this caegory and all it's children to Category: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth per rules of English grammar and to use the en-dash (as opposed to the hyphen) per the standard in Wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  

   Keep hyphens for now. The use of en-dash is inconsistent in Commons categories, and categories like Category:Bangladesh-India border don't use en-dashes like Wikipedia. It needs a broader discussion rather than such a CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I would have thought that a proposal to reduce inconsistency within Commons would have been welcomed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Broader where? Which forum ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see a proposal at the Pump. Since it is @Sbb1413: who is objecting, I think the onus lies on you to set out why a wider discussion and a new forum is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Keep Per Sbb1413. I'm not against the change per se, but it doesn't make sense to change one category when others use a hyphen. This really needs wider discussion on the Village Pump or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cycling related charts and diagrams

Dupe of Category:Cycling diagrams. Propose merge. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge and also per Commons:Categories Selectivity principle (wasn't there a page about that?) where and in the cat title is a redflag for there likely being an issue. Also charts are not diagrams; I'm moving charts in that cat accordingly. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Bos primigenius in Romania

Bos primigenius is a long-extinct species of cattle, so there should not be categories like "Bos primigenius in X". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The species was extant within recorded history (possibly as recently as the 17th or 18th century CE). Not recently enough to be photographed, but it's not prehistoric either. Omphalographer (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Peter McGuire

this picture is mistakenly labelled Peter McGuire but is actually Boccia player Ross Munro Lisaolisa (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Yeah sure, feel free to rename it to the correct one. Chongkian (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lisaolisa: This discussion is about a category, not a picture. The images in the category are:

• Two images showing two players
• A crop of one of the above images showing just one of the players

Please clarify: Is Peter McGuire shown at all in the 2-player images? Which player is shown in the 1-player image? The answers to these will help determine what to do here. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic bishops of China

• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in China as it is about their country of work, not their nationality Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Baseball team mascots

Propose renaming category to Baseball mascots. The word team is unnecessary and inconsistent with the respective categories of most other sports. This rename would also make the category consistent with its English Wikipedia equivalent, which is not necessary but convenient nonetheless. I created two of the subcategories, Minor League Baseball team mascots and Independent league baseball team mascots, based on this parent category's name and propose the same naming change to them as well. Waz8 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

These additional categories would also be renamed for consistency:

• Category:Independent league baseball team mascots
• Category:Minor League Baseball team mascots
• Category:Nippon Professional Baseball team mascots

Waz8 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Having notified the other two creators of affected categories and seeing no objections for over 7 weeks (closing guideline only requires 2 weeks), I've proceeded to do the rename. In retrospect, this could have been done as a non-controversial change, but I thought it prudent to check for objections first rather than possibly have to revert the changes, if someone did afterward. Waz8 (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Havelblick (Schloss Babelsberg)

Der Name der Kategorie scheint mir reine Theorienfindung zu sein. Der Nutzer drückt Fotos per Editwar in diese Kategorie. Stepro (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Raymond, @Wuselig, @Oursana wegen User talk:Vive la France2#Unterkategorien für Schloss Babelsberg und User talk:Vive la France2#Kategorien Schloss Babelsberg Stepro (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Keine Ahnung, was an der Kategorie problematisch sein soll. Sie fasst diverse Bilder zusammen, die den Blick von der Glienicker Brücke und von Schiffen auf Schloss Babelsberg zeigt. Es gibt viele Bilder vom Schloss, daher ist es nicht sinnvoll alles in die Hauptkategorie Schloss Babelsberg abzukippen. Das würde Unübersichtlichkeit hervorbringen. --Vive la France2 (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

22 Files in 5 Kategorien ist zunächst auffällig zu viel--Oursana (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Die kann man von mir aus auflösen, aber eine Category:Havelblick (Schloss Babelsberg) ist schon berechtigt. Ihr könnt es auch in die englische Sprache überführen, aber auch das ändert nichts an der grundsätzlichen Berechtigung der Kategorie --Vive la France2 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Havelblick ist sinnentleert weil zu weit. Mein Vorschlag wäre View of Schloss Babelsberg from Glienike Bridge oder auf Deutsch. Es ist nämlich nicht der Havelblick, welcher denn auch, sondern der Blick auf Schloss Babelsberg; Ginge auch View of Schloss Babelsberg from South east. Diese Kategorie sollte dann reichen, allenfalls Unterkategorie remote views... die wir hier aber nicht brauchen. Danke @User:Stepro für den pingOursana (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Na ja, es ist schon der Blick von der Havel oder über die Havel zum Schloss Babelsberg. Manche Fotoaufnahmen wurden vom Ufer oder von einem Boot aus gemacht, nicht nur von der Brücke. Deshalb ginge eine Kategorie View of Schloss Babelsberg from Glienike Bridge nicht weit genug. --Vive la France2 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Deshalb ja View of Schloss Babelsberg from South east.(Wiederholung)Oursana (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Unter einer Kategorie View of Schloss Babelsberg from South east kann sich der Kategoriebesucher aber wenig vorstellen. Was prägt denn den Blick vom Südosten auf das Schloss? Der Fluss, die Havel. Der Kategoriebesucher sucht vielleicht nach einer Ansicht des Schlosses mit dem Fluss und findet keine auf Anhieb, wenn wir die Kategorie schnöde View of Schloss Babelsberg from South east nennen. --Vive la France2 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

File:Schloss Babelsberg.jpg. Es ist die Frage, ob wir hier wirklich die Havelkategory brauchen. Und wenn dann Nordseite Schloss Babelsberg mit HavelOursana (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

So wird es aber unnötig kompliziert. Fakt ist, dass die Havel mit ihren verschiedenen Sichtachsen auf das Schloss von den Parkgestaltern im 19. Jahrhundert bewusst zur Inszenierung genutzt wurde. Es gibt genug Bilder, die so einer Kategorie eindeutig zugeordnet werden können. --Vive la France2 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ich verstehe nicht, was Du meinst. Havelblick (Schloss Babelsberg) ist unverständlich. Es geht um das Schloss mit Havel. Das sagt die Kategorie nicht. Bei 'Nordseite Schloss Babelsberg mit Havel weiß man was gemeint ist. Was ist daran unnötig kompliziert, was hat das mit den Sichtachsen und der Menge Bilder zu tun? Danke, dass Du die unterkategorien aufgelöst hast, die letzte machst Du wohl auch noch?--Oursana (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ich meine schlicht, dass der Name 'Nordseite Schloss Babelsberg mit Havel etwas sprerrig und lang ist. Auf vielen Bildern dieser Ansichten wirkt das Schloss ja auch eher klein und bildet den Hintergrund. Das Schloss ist perspektivisch in die Havellandschaft eingebettet, im Verständnis von Lenné und Pückler, den Gestaltern von Park Babelsberg. Das bringt die Kategorie Havelblick (Schloss Babelsberg) besser zum Ausdruck. Aber wenn du unbedingt drauf bestehst, nenn die Kategorie halt 'Nordseite Schloss Babelsberg mit Havel. Für mich ist es zwar ein Blick von und über der Havel zum Schloss und nicht Ansichten eines großen Schlosses mit einer kleinen Havel, aber sei es drum. Ich halte die Kategorie - egal, wie man sie letztlich nennt - für sinnvoll, da die Haupt- und Oberkategorie Schloss Babelsberg überfüllt wäre, wenn sie sämtliche Havelbilder zeigen würde. Würde man die Kategorie auflösen, würden die Bilder ja dorthin einsortiert werden. Und ja, ich löse die Unterkategorie Havelblick 21. Jahrhundert auf. Vive la France2 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Erstmal Danke für Deine Beweglichkeit. Ich denke auch, dass die Kategorie sinnvoll ist, ich habe mir aber noch keine abschliessende Meinung gebildet. Ich habe die Kategorie jetzt unter Nordseite Schloss Babelsberg aufgehängt und mit dem Zusammenspiel mit dieser Kategorie macht der von mir vorgeschlagene Name Sinn. Bei wenig Havel File:BabelsbergP1020137.jpg, File:Glienicker Brücke - Schloß Babelsberg (28560823405).jpg macht es nicht Sinn -sagst Du selbst - , ich habe die Dateien in Nordseite..umsortiert, ebenso File:Schloss Babelsberg 2012.jpg ganz ohne Havel. Unter Havelblick (Schloss Babelsberg) verstehe ich wie hier die umgekehrte Richtung vom Babelsberger Schloss zur Havel. Im übrigen haben wir 13 files in Schloss Babelsberg und ca. 40 in Nordseite Schloss Babelsberg Oursana (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Die Blickrichtung vom Babelsberger Schloss zur Havel sollte aber eher "Schloss mit Havel" heißen, denn dann steht das Schloss perspektivisch im Vordergrund und die Havel bildet nur den Bildhintergrund. Havelblick (Schloss Babelsberg) bringt genau das zum Ausdruck, was hier angestrebt wurde und wird. Kategorie Nordseite kann man noch feiner gliedern, da sehe ich kein Problem an der Kategorie an sich. Meinetwegen kann das Ding auch "Havelblick zum Schloss Babelsberg" heißen und das andere "Schloss Babelsberg mit Havel" Vive la France2 (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Die nachfolgenden Kategorien führe ich auf, weil sie mit dieser Diskussion die Thematik der überflüssigen Unterkategorien gemeinsam Haben zw. jetzt hatten. Und wegen Deiner Reaktion, hat sich das hier schon gelohnt. Da ich gerade versuche die Kategorien zusammenzufassen, bin ich darüber gestolpert. Dies soll diese Diskussion nicht stören, sondern sie kann anschliessend hier fortgeführt werden--Oursana (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Bulldogge Schloss Babelsberg

geht so auch garnichtOursana (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Stimmt, hat nur leider nichts mit der hier diskutierten Kategorie zu tun. Man kann auch unnötig viele Nebelkerzen anzünden. --Vive la France2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ulmer Dogge Schloss Babelsberg

noch schlimmer im KategorienversteckspielOursana (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Stimmt, hat nur leider nichts mit der hier diskutierten Kategorie zu tun. Man kann auch unnötig viele Nebelkerzen anzünden. --Vive la France2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Dicker Turm (Schloss Babelsberg)

dtoOursana (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Stimmt, hat nur leider nichts mit der hier diskutierten Kategorie zu tun. Man kann auch unnötig viele Nebelkerzen anzünden. --Vive la France2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Erker von Augustas Arbeitszimmer Schloss Babelsberg

dto--Oursana (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Schinkelbau Schloss Babelsberg

dto--Oursana (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Neugotische Bank Schloss Babelsberg

dtoOursana (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Source categories (flat list)

This category seems like a weird "mish mush" of random categories for files, images, photographs, Etc. Etc. "by source" that ultimately have nothing to do with each other except for being "sources" (whatever that means). Plus it seems to be a duplicate of exiting "by source" categories. Or at least it would be if the category wasn't a dump for essentially everything. So the category should be up-merged to better ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the categories aren't already in more appropriate anyway. But this totally meaningless as a maintenance category, to browse, or really to use for any other purpose. Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, there's also a lot of over-categorization here. Like Category:Files from Ana Paula Hirama Flickr stream is in Category:Flickr streams which is in Category:Files from Flickr leading back to this category. So that needs to be worked out if anyone want's to argue keeping this. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 KeepUseful imo. -- Triple C 85 ^{| User talk |} 19:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Conseil municipal de Paris, 1871-1890

I don't really care about this either but since someone left me a long winded rant about it on my talk page, the title of the book seems to be "Conseil municipal de Paris." There's a mark after that, but it looks like a period and there's clearly a separator line between the title and years. Meaning the years are part of the subtitle, which usually isn't included in the name of categories for books. I created Category:Conseil municipal de Paris (1871-1890) to remedy the problem but @Asclepias: seems to think differently. Ergo the CfD. Although I don't think this is something that worth wasting the time for a CfD on. Why not though if I'm just going to get lectured and reverted over a simple category rename.

Anyway, the category should be changed to Category:Conseil municipal de Paris (1871-1890) or just "Conseil municipal de Paris" since the years are clearly the subheading due to the period and divider before them. Generally, that's how it works with books and using pointless commas and/or spaces in category names when there's no reason to is just needlessly convoluted. Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I wanted to gently point out that using a dismissive tone and characterizing another editor's input as a "lecture" violates the principles of Commons:Civility. We're all volunteers here. I encourage everyone to focus on the content discussion about categories and assume good faith. Nebula84912 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: When someone with one tenth the amount of edits I have writes multiple paragraphs on my talk page about the renaming policy for doing something that is pretty non-controversial, it comes off like lecturing. I could say the same to you for coming here just to show concern about it without voting or actually saying anything else that has to do with the CfD. Really, how are you "focusing on the content discussion about categories and assuming good faith" with your comment? Or am I the only who has to focus on the content and assume good faith but it's cool if you don't? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

My edit count is not relevant to the application of project policies like civility. My comment was focused on the content of the discussion, specifically the tone being used, which is a part of that content. The principles of assuming good faith and maintaining a civil environment are prerequisites for productive collaboration, and my intention was solely to remind us of that.

I will not be drawn into a further meta-discussion on this. I encourage you to re-engage in the CfD discussion in a constructive manner. Nebula84912 (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nebula84912: I was talking about Asclepias' edit count compared to mine. Which is relevant as far as them feeling the need to tell me about the policy for renaming categories when I have 700,000 edits. Like I wouldn't know at this point. Anyway, at least IMO "tone" has nothing to do with the content of the discussion. What would, is you saying if you think the category should be renamed or not. Reading someone's intent behind their comment has nothing to do with the CfD and I'd love to discuss it. Your the one stopping me from doing it with the pointless tone policing. No one cares and it has nothing to do with the discussion. So please just skip it next time. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I overlook the part of the talk page, sorry about that. That said, edit counts are not relevant to this discussion. Per Commons:Civility, productive discussions require focusing on content respectfully. My comment on tone was meant to keep the discussion productive, not to police you personally. Dismissing policies or focusing on personal metrics rather than content makes constructive dialogue difficult. Nebula84912 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit count is relevant if I feel like it's relevant. Sorry, but you don't get to tell me or otherwise decide what I think matters. Thanks though. Anyway, your literally doing the exact thing that your going off on me about. You could have just not left the first message about it, or just not commented to begin with, and I would have been talking to Nakonana right now. The only reason this isn't productive is because your derailing it. Please stop already. Either comment on the actual CfD or just don't comment. I'm not going to say it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 Keep category name as is because the time frame is part of the book title ("City Council of Paris: 1871-1890.") The book was published in 1890. I don't see why "1871-1890" should be in brackets. It's kind of misleading, because it makes you think that the time frame would refer to the time of publication of the book when in fact it is referring to the legislation period(s) of the city council that the book is about. Nakonana (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not part of the title though. It's underneath it after a period and graphic that are both clearly meant to be breaks before a sub-heading. As far as I know sub-headings aren't usually included in the names of categories for books, or at least they shouldn't be. If anything the years should just either just be left out or replaced with the publication year. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Here's the cover. The the time frame is clearly separate from the title at the top. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, the problem is: what if there's a "Conseil municipal de Paris, 1891-1910" book? Nakonana (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:2015 photographs by User:ProtoplasmaKid

please move to Category:2015 media by User:ProtoplasmaKid or split the category for another cat Category:2015 videos by User:ProtoplasmaKid @ProtoplasmaKid: Prototyperspective (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: This looks like a user category, even though it's not labelled as such. I think we can let the user decide what to put in their user category, even if the category is somewhat misnamed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that user categories are fine to be named incorrectly – they are less important than normal categories which aren't hidden but they should still not be false and I don't know of any policy that suggests otherwise and if there was one I'd suggest to change it since all categories on WMC are supposed to aim for some kind of accuracy. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@ProtoplasmaKid: Se trata de una categoría en tu espacio de usuario; tengo curiosidad por conocer tu opinión. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Daşbulaq

there are several villages of "Daşbulaq" in Azerbaijan. Therefor I renamed this category to "Daşbulaq, Khojaly". I suggest to delate the old page "Category:Daşbulaq". Zohrab Javad (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:World War II memorial, Daşbulaq

There are several villages of "Daşbulaq" in Azerbaijan. Therefor it should be renamed to "Category:World War II memorial, Daşbulaq, Khojaly". I can move it by myself, but then I wil need to edit all related images manually. But I think it can be done easier. Could you please support in this? Zohrab Javad (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I've moved them. — Golden ^talk 09:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Golden Could you please also delate the direct-page of old name? Zohrab Javad (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zohrab Javad: I don't have the permissions for that. You have to request it. — Golden ^talk 12:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:World War II memorial, Daşbulaq

There are several villages of "Daşbulaq" in Azerbaijan.. therefor I suggest to delate the the direct-page of the old name. --Zohrab Javad (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:People listed in Russia as foreign agents

Totally pointless category that has nothing to do with anything related to the people in it organizing media. The point in categories to help people organize images, not act as stores of meaningless facts and this is fundamentally meaningless since Russia labels essentially anyone from a foreign country (or even Russia) that has a slightly negative opinion about the government as a "foreign agent." There certainly isn't any images in any of these categories that have to do with the people their for being labeled as such. Like what does this image have to do with foreign agents and why do we care that the Russian government labeled some rando at a demonstration in Berlin as one just because they protested Alexei Navalny's death? Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

why do we care that the Russian government labeled some rando at a demonstration in Berlin as one just because they protested Alexei Navalny's death?- without this phrase this nomination would be better (ru:Боварь, Виталий Викторович is not a random who was labeled for this demonstration), but anyway the category does not make too much sense. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 15:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:People by behavior

It looks like there's currently Category:People by behavior, Category:People by activity, Category:People by occupation, Category:People by hobby, Category:People by subject, and that's just what I could think off the top of my head. I'm sure there's at least a couple of other similar categories out there.

Anyway, it seems like all of the categories I've listed are for "people doing things." It doesn't seem clear from looking through them what exactly a person should or shouldn't be doing to be included in the categories though. Plus there's a ton of overlap. Like Category:Activists is a subcat of both Category:People by hobby as well as Category:People by behavior. Is activism a hobby, behavior, activity, occupation, subject or something else completely though? Heck if I know. So I think at least a couple of the categories either need to be axed or at least clearly defined. People just randomly dumping things in multiple categories based on their personal feelings or whatever like is happening now isn't working though. Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we add Category:People by setting and Category:People by status? -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

"People by setting" has a reasonable concept at its core - categories about people which relate to their location or surroundings. "By status" is a bit more nebulous, and some of its subcategories like "by gender" or "by vital status" (parent to the massive Category:Living people!) should probably be promoted to direct subcats of Category:People. Omphalographer (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that this feels like a messy mish-mash of "categories which describe what people are doing in the photo" (i.e. Category:People by activity) and "categories which describe what people are known for doing" (i.e. Category:People by occupation). As far as "by hobby" is concerned, I'd love to merge that with "by occupation", since the boundaries between a hobby and a job can get really fuzzy (e.g. for an activist!); is there some way we can reword that to make it clearer that it isn't just about gainful employment? Omphalographer (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think People by hobby should rather be merged with People by activity than People by occupation; if subcategories are ambiguous, they could still be categorized as "by activity" AND "by occupation". Anyways, I support the idea of merging "People by hobby" with one of the other categories. Bücherfresser (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Basilicas and cathedrals in Kerala

A union category, can be split into Category:Basilicas in Kerala and Category:Cathedrals in Kerala. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Support These two categories are typical for regional subdivisions throughout the world. Farragutful (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ox skulls

Upmerge to Category:Cattle skulls. There's no physical difference between the skulls of castrated male cattle (oxen) and other cattle skulls, and terms like "ox" and "cow" are often used attributively in English for cattle in general. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support merge. All of the images in this category are from a single book which used the word "ox" as a generic term for cattle. Omphalographer (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Alejandro Coello

Never mind, I was mistaken. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Krkjan, Nagorno-Karabakh

Nomination for renaming back to “Category:Kərkicahan”. --Zohrab Javad (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Official name and de-facto name is Kərkicahan (en- Karkijahan). The name was the same in the pre-conflict period as well. Zohrab Javad (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:World War II memorial, Daşbulaq

There are several villages of "Daşbulaq" in Azerbaijan. Therefor it should be renamed to "Category:World War II memorial, Daşbulaq, Khojaly". I can move it by myself, but then I wil need to edit all related images manually. But I think it can be done easier. Could you please support in this? Zohrab Javad (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I've moved them. — Golden ^talk 09:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Golden Could you please also delate the direct-page of old name? Zohrab Javad (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Zohrab Javad: I don't have the permissions for that. You have to request it. — Golden ^talk 12:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:World War II memorial, Daşbulaq

There are several villages of "Daşbulaq" in Azerbaijan.. therefor I suggest to delate the the direct-page of the old name. --Zohrab Javad (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Armstand diving

"Armstand diving" isn't a discipline in its own right, suggest rename to Category:Divers performing armstand dives. GCarty (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Information graphics about sociology

shouldn't this be merged with Category:Information graphics about society – nearly none of these are about the field of sociology but all are about society like the other files in that parent cat that aren't in this subcat Prototyperspective (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Slovenia road sign II-1

This category overlaps 100% with Category:Yield signs in Slovenia. As while the sign remains the same the official numbering changes (since 2015 it is no longer II-1 but 2101), I propose we recategorise all files to Yield signs in Slovenia and make this category a redirect. —Upwinxp (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Yearbooks

All the subcategories map on to Texts. Could that be altered so they appear in the appropriate category of books? Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

For example Category:1920 yearbooks is a subcategory of Category:1920 texts. Could it rather go in Category:1920 books? Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Coldplay - Wembley Stadium - Friday 12th September 2025

Empty category GustavoCza (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Countries and territories by official language

This seems like a pointless intersectional category that violates the rule about how they exist to help people organize media, not be stores of pointless facts.

Also, what makes a language "official" or not and where's the limit? Like there's 15 "officially" used languages in the United States, 2 in Canada, 11 or so in China, Etc. Etc. So what's the actual purpose here? To add a bunch of categories for "official" languages of China to Category:China? The whole thing makes zero sense and just leads to pointless overcategorization. Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete; also delete Category:Countries and territories where Russian is an official language, Category:Official languages, and the ten subcategories of "Official languages". All of these categories are being used exclusively to represent factual claims (e.g. "the official languages of Canada are English and French"; "Russian is an official language of Chechnya", etc), not to categorize media files. Omphalographer (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical eras

I feel like this is a duplicate of Category:History by period and there doesn't seem to be any good parent categories for it. Since neither Category:Historical or Category:Eras seem to be things. So I'm going to merge this into Category:History by period if there's no objections. Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Russian Empire

I've spent a lot of my time on here editing and creating categories for related to Russia and the Russian Empire. 99% of the time anything having to do with the "Russian Empire" is done by people who are clearly doing political POV editing or leads to pointless overlap with normal categories for Russia. The fact is that most (if not all) of the sub-cats in here are either just named "Russia" or should be. A good example of that is the subcategories in the various Russian Empire by year categories which just use "Russia."

It's clearly just a big mess and one that at least IMO isn't worth distinguishing between since most everyone just refers to the Russian Empire as "Russia" anyway. Even Russians and specifically Russian users on Commons. I don't think people should have to figure out if an image should go in a category for "Russia", "the Russian Empire", or a mix of both based on the clearly arbitrarily standards of whomever creates these categories either. There's clearly a lot of overlap and miss categorization based on the personal preferences of users that makes it impossible to organize, find, or look at images related to the subject.

So this and everything in it should be up-merged to categories for Russia by the year or something. Like "Russia in 1912" or whatever. Maybe a few categories for things specifically related to the Russian Empire should be saved in the process. But it's totally pointless to have a top level category specifically for the "empire" when essentially everything under it is just named "Russia" or at least should be per the Universality Principle. Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge categories like Category:Russian Empire by year to Category:Russia by year. But keep Category:Russian Empire and the subcats specifically related to the empire. The category Category:Russia should cover former countries named "Russia" or "Muscovy". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Isnt the Russian Empire geographically larger than Russia? Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was. It included parts of Europe and Asia that present-day Russia doesn't include. For reference:

• 
  Russian Empire
• 
  Russia

--Auntof6 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical regions

"Historical regions" makes zero sense and goes against the consensus in recent discussions that categories with "historical" should be phased in favor of ones saying "history." A lot of the sub-cats here are called "former" anyway. So I think it should be renamed to "former regions" to better fit the consensus and what most of the categories in here are already called anyway. Either that it should just be gotten rid of completely since I don't think it's meaningful subject for a specific category anyway, but I'm fine with it just being changed to "former regions" instead. As long as it fits how similar categories are named. Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support renaming it to "former regions" to phase out the problematic term "historical". Cf. Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:Former countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical transcontinental empires

This category is totally nonsensical and pointless since all transcontinental empires are "historical" at this point. There's also a clear consensus against categories with "historical" in their names from previous discussions and this is wrongly categorized in Category:Historical regions when empires aren't regions to begin with. I left a message about it on the talk page of the user who created the category, but they ignored me and decided to get in an edit war over it instead. So I think the category should be deleted since it's totally pointless and doesn't follow the consensus to get rid of "historical" categories. Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

What is a "transcontinental empire", anyway? Did this mean to say "intercontinental empires"? Transcontinental simply means extending from one end of a continent to the other. But if it means "intercontinental" then why wouldn't it include the British and French empires, and if it does mean "transcontinental" then many of those here now would not qualify.

In any case, I can't think of why either categorization would be relevant to Commons: delete and if any of these are nowhere else under Category:Empires, then they need to be (except for the Soviet Union: very contentious to call that an "empire", unless we are also applying that term to the United States). - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom

Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom and Jmabel. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Invididual YouTube videos

There is a typo in category name. I propose renaming it in Category:Individual YouTube videos. Jarash (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

It could be simply moved without discussion if there was a typo. However,  Deleteing it may be best since a large fraction of videos on Commons, like 50%, are from or also on YouTube and thus also individual videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The point is to be a parent category for categories that are about specific YouTube videos. Trade (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the move that dealt with the misspelling, no problem if someone wanted to flesh it out (as a catcat, not for all videos), but right now it only has one member! - Jmabel ! talk`

Category:Nature (journal)

Could the template be altered so that the year categories go into. eg Category:Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1904 ? Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? This category is for media related to the journal Nature. It already has subcategories for each year the journal was published.

Categories like "Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1904" should go in Category:Scientific journals of the United Kingdom by year. Nebula84912 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a category discussion; you can edit the template to add this category with the year being a variable; this is a redcat however so I doubt it should be added to the template and also it's badly named (should rather be for example "Media from scientific journals of the United Kingdom published in 1904"). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

the subcategories for Nature by year go into, for example, Category:1900 scientific journals not Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1900. I dont know how to edit the template that does this. Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit the template, look where it says 1234 scientific journals and replace that string with Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1234 basically. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I dont know how to find the template Rathfelder (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:Scientific journals by year. Nebula84912 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

That is for all scientific journals, isnt it? I want to divide them by country. Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Simply press the edit button and you'll see which template it is! It's {{Nature (journal) by year}}. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Moving in the right direction, but this then wants categories like Category:1927 scientific journals of the United Kingdom - but these categories are the other way round - Category:Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1923. Can we alter that? Rathfelder (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments and CfD requests: just make the simple change you're requesting. Special:Diff/1090374048

The categories may need purging. As both of the categories you linked the difference between them should probably be clearer or if they are about the same they be merged – I guess one is about when the journal was established and one about the release year of the editions. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This seems to work fine now. I'm afraid I find templates difficult Rathfelder (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Individual AI-generated images

redundant to AI-generated images; it doesn't even have {{CatCat}} but if it had it, it wouldn't make it better Prototyperspective (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This category is about individual AI images that are notable enough to have their own category. All the other categories are either groups or series of notable AI images Trade (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Whether people categorized an image doesn't imply special notability and not being categorized as common for just one file doesn't imply relative unnotability. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A/Volume 216

This should be in Category:Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1916, not Category:Magazines of the United Kingdom, 1916. Can someone please alter the template? Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done (?) Here's how I did it (super easy): 1. press edit on the category to see which template it is 2. go to the template and press edit 3. look for string "Magazines of the United Kingdom" and replace it with "Scientific journals of the United Kingdom". For the change to take effect it could take a while or you may purge categories via appending ?action=purge to the URLs. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Its still in 1916 scientific journals, as well as Scientific journals of the United Kingdom, 1916. Can it be taken out of the superior categroty? Rathfelder (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Prototyperspective (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:The Canadian field-naturalist

about 50 empty categories. Are there plans to populate them? Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Dead of CRT monitor

Ungrammatical title; should probably be merged into Category:Defective CRT monitors. A Category:Smrt ana monitoru (image set) category could be created as well, though. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Merge and delete per nom. I don't see any need for an image set category. If the uploader wants a COM:USERCAT, that's fine, but I don't see any reason to distinguish this image set in the main category tree. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kommunarka (confectionery)

Merge with Category:Kommunarka (company). I wanted to merge two items on wikidata d:Q4229854 and d:Q136230674, I failed because these items were connected to different categories on Commons. Jarash (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Subject-matter experts

It's questionable that "Subject-matter expert" is an occupation to begin with. Although the term is to ambiguous to be useful even if it is. Per Commons:Categories "we should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided.

It looks like all the images in this category are a from the same event. So they be put in one specifically for it and this should be deleted per the selectivity principle. Since it's clearly to general to be useful. Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support a rename. "Subject-matter experts" is an abstract concept which doesn't lend itself to visual representation; this specific US National Guard event should be categorized more specifically. Omphalographer (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Videos about climate change and global warming

either merge with Category:Videos of climate change or move like a third of media from there to here Prototyperspective (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Roads by cross-section

I would like to merge this category to Category:Roads by number of lanes, eliminating the "cross section" term. The main reason I'm not just making the change is the description on some of the pages. For example, the text at the top of Category:Two lane roads was apparently meaningful at some point; I don't think it is now, but maybe I'm missing something.

In addition, the cross-section and number-of-lanes categories have some subcats that appear to be duplicates. For example, there are the categories Category:2-lane roads (under number of lanes) and Category:Two lane roads (under cross-section), and the same with 4-, 6-, and 8-lane roads. If we keep both sets of categories, we should rename the cross-section ones to make it clearer that they are not equivalent to the number-of-lanes ones. If we don't keep both sets, I would merge/rename categories to use digits instead of spelling out the numbers.

Summary of proposed changes:

• Rename any categories using the "by cross-section" term to use "by number of lanes" instead
• Merge subcategories where duplicates exist, such as Category:2-lane roads and Category:Two lane roads
• Rename remaining categories that spell out the number of lanes to use digits for the number of lanes. For example, rename Category:Seven lane roads to Category:7-lane roads
• Merge any remaining content as appropriate. I think this would mainly be the categories for single-track roads, but something else might appear during processing.

--Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment - I think the intent of the "cross-section" language was to clarify that the number of lanes counts lanes in both directions, e.g. a typical surface street with room for one car to travel in each direction is a "two-lane road". However, this is sometimes impossible to determine, e.g. File:North El Tecolote, Nuevo Leon (5709655025).jpg is clearly at least four lanes, probably six, but the lanes in the opposite direction can't be seen clearly. (It's currently categorized as three-lane, which is certainly wrong.)

How do you plan on interpreting lane counts? I don't have any strong feelings on the matter, but we do need an unambiguous interpretation. Omphalographer (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Philatelists by country

This seems like one of those pointless instances where categories are being used to store basic facts that have nothing to do with the media in them since none of the people in this or any sub-category seem to be doing anything related to philately in any of the pictures we have of them. Not to mention only one or two people in here are actually widely known for being philatelists from what I can tell anyway and it's certainly not a defining trait for either one. So this and the sub-categories should be deleted. Since their just pointless trivia that has nothing to do with organizing images. Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Phlately sounds more like a pastime hobby than a serious profession, although there are philatelic museums in different countries, including India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. The category has counterparts in 8 [!] Wikipedias: Category:Philatelists by nationality - Wikidata. -- For many of them, their philatelic activities are the reason why they are described in a Wikipedia article. Philately is (mostly) not a profession (with the exception of stamp dealers and auctioneers), but a serious occupation.

Clemens Dulcis (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear Powers

Putting aside that the category is in caps for some reason, I don't really see the point in this since most states are either known nuclear powers or at least have secret nuclear programs. It's not like any of the media in most, if not, all of these categories have anything to do with nuclear weapons anyway either. Categories don't exist to act as stores of basic facts. Especially facts that are broadly applicable, unverifiable, and/or have nothing to do with the media in said categories. So this category should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a category like this is needed if the subcats are just the general categories for countries. We already have Category:Nuclear weapons programs by country, which should be enough. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Good call. I wasn't aware of the other category. I'll wait for a while to see if anyone else comments and then just delete it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as a mere collection of countries. Category:Nuclear weapons programs is enough for most cases. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The category can be removed is empty! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 14:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Antoine.01: Please don't empty or change these categories while the discussion is still open, even if the consensus seems clear. Discussions normally run at least 2 weeks. I have repopulated these categories and removed the speedy deletion requests you added. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I created this category myself and read that there is a problem with it, that's why I emptied it thinking that it would be solved that way! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 22:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Antoine.01: That may very well end up being the solution, but since the discussion is open, it's best to let it run. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick response to this. So the discussion is still open, strange that (here) after seven days, despite only one vote for removing the photo and one against, it was still removed. Then they should have waited here too until more people had spoken out, right!? Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 12:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Antoine.01: That file deletion was a copyright issue; those should be addressed ASAP because there are legal considerations. Category issues can be more administrative, with no legal considerations, so they can be less urgent. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

If it is a copyright issue why are we being asked to discuss this (very strange)! Antoine.01_overleg(Antoine) 14:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Antoine.01: We aren't. The difference is that the process for files is deletion requests, not deletion discussions. Something inherent in that file was against policy (in this case, a policy related to copyright). No discussion or waiting period is required if an admin agrees that there's a policy issue that requires deleting the file.

With categories, the process is categories for discussion, not for deletion ("categories for discussion" is right there in the title of the page). In this case, there is no copyright issue, and this CFD is a discussion because no real harm is caused by the category continuing to exist while people give their thoughts.

Hope that makes sense. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Puppet states

There is no broadly agreed on definition for what qualifies a country as a "puppet state." Usually it just depends on what-ever country wants to label another one as a "puppet state" at the time for propaganda purposes. There's certainly no media in any of these categories having to do with "puppet states" and categories don't exist to be stores of unverifiable, random facts that have nothing to do with the media in them. Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Delete as creator. I created it along with other categories as types fo countries. But turns out, this term is too subjective to even exist, although Category:Puppet states in art may make sense. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I assume it wouldn't be a subcategory of Category:Puppets in art? Lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Private collections

Probably rightly so, but there doesn't seem to be a category for public collections and the point in this category is questionable anyway. So I think the sub-categories should be up-merged and this should be deleted. Otherwise I'd be interested to know exactly what makes a collection private and why it matters to begin with. This seems rather pointless without a clear definition or purpose though. Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Keep I do not get the point of this discussion, specially concerning the subcats. Public collections are subject of museums, and consider, that this category is in use since 2010 without any comment on the disc. Oursana (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Oursana,  Keep. Ooligan (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Photographers and artists by year of death

This and the sub-categories in here seem like pointless trivia since literally know one looks for photographers (or photographs by them) based on when they died and it has zero bearing any on in the images the categories. Except for maybe telling what time period a particular photograph was taken in. But that's already served by categories specifically for "categories by date." Regardless, categories exist to organize media, not to store meaningless facts, and this one does absolutely nothing to help anyone do that. So it should be deleted as totally pointless. It's not like the information can't be stored in Wikidata infoboxes or creator templates anyway. I really don't see how this category system helps anyone organize or find images though. Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Temeşvar Province, Ottoman Empire

Should be moved to Category:Temeşvar Eyalet as per Temeşvar Eyalet Zoupan (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fast food restaurants in Australia by prefecture

Australia does not have prefectures. This category is redundant to Category:Fast food restaurants in Australia by city Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete for the same reason as Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:Restaurants in Australia by prefecture. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Restaurants in Australia by prefecture

Australia does not have prefectures. We already have Category:Restaurants in Australia by city and Category:Restaurants in Australia by state or territory. Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Delete as noted we already have Category:Fast food restaurants in Australia by state or territory and the only subcategory is Category:Fast food restaurants in Australia by prefecture which has the same cities as Category:Fast food restaurants in Australia by city anyway so there isn't really anything to merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game

"State of Washington Department of Fisheries and Game" has not been a current name since 1932. On the category page, I trace the long history of separating, combining, renaming, etc. I believe we should follow the state's current usage and move this to Category:State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The only other course of action I think is reasonable is if someone thinks it is worth picking apart the many separate entities that have existed along the way and giving separate subcategories to any for which we have media. (For example, File:Granite Falls 01 - fisheries sign.jpg depicts a sign from when there was a separate "Washington State Department of Fisheries".) My own inclination would be to keep the categorization simple, have only the one category with the name that has now been used for 32 years, not one from nearly a century ago. Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We should have one category for the organization, and the name should be updated to the organization's most recent name. The historical names should be category redirects where it makes sense. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Featured pictures of mammals in Madhya Pradesh

OVERCAT; CAT:Featured pictures of animals in Madhya Pradesh is sufficient currently UnpetitproleX (Talk) 03:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Denudation

Should this perhaps be moved to category:disrobing or made a redirect to category:doffing? wikt:denudation works, but is a rare usage. Arlo James Barnes 07:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both "disrobing" and "doffing" are synonyms of Category:Undressing, which is a broader term. "Denudation" is specifically for undressing till there's no clothing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lesbic sex in art

I strongly believe that this category and its subcategories should be renamed to be "Lesbian [...]" rather than "Lesbic [...]" Ixtal (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

 Move you can correct typos without starting a CfD. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s a reasonable charge Dronebogus (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Isle of Portland

Propose merge with Category:Portland, Dorset, per my original comment here. I am agnostic about which name should be used for the merged category. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The local authority is just composed of the island, plus a narrow band of sand to the North-West with a beach bordering the sea on one side and a laguna. That narrow band is split in the middle between two local authorities. So most contents go to the category for the island, except that narrow band (for me it is clear, there's no ambiguity; the ambiguity comes only for the long narrow band of sand and a part of the laguna which are shared, and that may eventually become a subcategory for both local authorities). Anyway both entities are separated on the map, with distinct entities in OSM (as visible on the displayed map), the current names reflect that distinction. But I have no opinion if both categories should be merged or not. If they are merged, the narrow sand band and the laguna should become subcategories of both local authorities that share this area.

Regarding the official authority name (also the geographical name) it should absolutely keep "Isle of" completely, "Portland" along is not sufficient and needs disambiguation, which may be with "Isle of" alone (as long as it is sufficient), or completed with a ", Dorset" suffix; but "Portland, Dorset" looks wrong for me as it does not contain the official name of the local authority which is too much abbreviated; maps, signs on roads and addresses almost always keep the term "Isle" which is culturally important and significant (I think the name of the islands is inherited from a person name, that same person that whose name was also used to name the well known large city, capital of Oregon State in USA, most frequently referred just as "Portland"; it's not hard to find other locations named after "Portland"). So please preserve "Isle of" in the chosen name of the British local authority, just like with "Isle of Man" or "Isle of Wight"; I think that the disambiguation as "Portland, Dorset" is wrong (and why then wouldn't it be "Portland, England" or "Portland, UK", when none of them are official or even common use, even in UK?). verdy_p (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

•  Support reverse merge. The name of the island is "Island of Portland" while it's parish is just "Portland". So the longer name provides natural disambiguation even though the island is often called just "Portland". Per w:User:Seav/Islands and administrative units given that the parish only covers the island there is probably no reason to have separate categories. See Category:Madagascar for example even though there are other much smaller islands at Category:Islands of Madagascar by name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:སྣ་ཚོགས།

What is this category about? I don't doubt from looking at the contents that there is a coherent concept here, but there are no parent categories, no wikidata item, no description, and Google Translate tells me that the category name is just the Dzongka word for "misccellaneous". Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Gartsering can you explain? You've been using the category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Comic cartoons

Is Category:Comic cartoons redundant with Category:Cartoons? Be sure to see the infobox at Category:Cartoons. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support I also think Category:Comic cartoons is redundant with Category:Cartoons and should be merged into it. Bücherfresser (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe turned into a redirect to Category:Humor cartoons? Bücherfresser (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

My first reaction was yes, but... aren't all cartoons intended to be humorous at some level? An "illustration telling a comic or satirical story" ? I would suggest directing both Category:Humor cartoons and Category:Comic cartoons to Category:Cartoons -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

To answer your question, No, not all cartoons are intended to be humorous. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: The quote above was from the category description at Category:Cartoon. What definition of cartoon are we working with that distinguishes it from Category:Illustrations? -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Elektrichestvo (magazine)

the subcategories need to be Scientific journals of Russia, by date, not magazines Rathfelder (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Filologicheskie Zapiski, 1860

sub categories should be in Scientific journals of Russia, by year, not magazines Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nauka i Zhizn

Template needs attention to put sub categories in to Scientific journals of Russia, by year Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Then please raise the matter at Template talk:Nauka i Zhizn, instead of creating a CfD. (But pinging Butko, who created the template.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Physics-Uspekhi

Subcategories should go into Category:Scientific journals of Russia by year Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)