Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07

Category:Text stories

Is this a useful category? It seems to be associated with American comics Rathfelder (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If it is that specific, then it certainly should be renamed more clearly. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder and Jmabel: The category description mentions "Prose story" as a synonym, do you think that name would be better? ReneeWrites (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
I think it needs to mention American comics. After all most stories are written in prose. Maybe American comic prose stories? Rathfelder (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fort Eisenhower

Fort Eisenhower was renamed to Fort Gordon a few years ago. Although a bunch of files on here, Wikipedia articles, and the Wikidata entry for the fort up until a few days ago still referred to it as Fort Eisenhower. That is until a user, 烤麵包機, apparently unilaterally decided to empty the category and rename the Wikidata entry a days ago. They seem to be doing the same other categories and Wikidata items for military installations to. Although they don't seem to have many edits on Wikidata outside of this whole thing. So I think changing these categories need proper discussion. At least IMO they serve a historical purpose and help people organize media related to the places since there's still files, Wikipedia entries, Etc. Etc. using the old names. There's zero reason categories for both names can't exist until people and other projects fully adopt the new one. Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirects should be kept. Wouldn't that make a difference? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
It might work but it's not optimal. Ideally other projects besides English Wikipedia should change the names of their articles before we rename the categories since there's links to it and whatnot. Changing the name of a category just because English Wikipedia changes the name of an article when there's like 10 articles in other languages just seems...Anglocentric? At least Commons is a multilingual project. I think people outside of English speakers should have a chance to catch up and the files using the old name should be renamed before the category is changed. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@烤麵包機: --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fort Gregg-Adams

The name of this military installation was changed from Fort Gregg-Adams to Fort Lee last month. @烤麵包機: proposed changing the category in accordance with that. It looks like most of the stuff on here, the Wikidata entry, as well as a good portion of the Wikipedia articles for the fort still refer to it by the old name though. So I don't the name should be changed yet until media on here, other Wikipedia projects, Etc. Etc. have a chance to catch up and start using the new name. It doesn't help people organize or find media related to "Fort Gregg-Adams" if the category doesn't exist anymore. Either that or the old category should be retained as a way to organize things related to the historical name up until it's not necessary anymore. It seems like it's to early to change the name on here when the new one hasn't even been adopted yet though. The main purpose in categories is to help find and organize media related to a subject. That's not served by changing the name of the category at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirects should be kept. Wouldn't that make a difference? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
It might work but it's not optimal. Ideally other projects besides English Wikipedia should change the names of their articles before we rename the categories since there's links to it and whatnot. Changing the name of a category just because English Wikipedia changes the name of an article when there's like 10 articles in other languages just seems...Anglocentric? At least Commons is a multilingual project. I think people outside of English speakers should have a chance to catch up and the files using the old name should be renamed before the category is redirected. There's about 3000 files on here that use "Fort Gregg-Adams" though. It doesn't make sense to just change the category when literally nothing else refers to it as Fort Lee at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I think the category was changed because the fort was renamed, not because English Wikipedia changed their article. If this change seems Anglocentric, maybe that's OK --the name of the place is in English, after all. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: The user who requested the move seems to mainly be active on Wikipedia. The only edits they have made on here recently directly relates to the redirect request. Hence why I think it has to do with the name of the English Wikipedia article being changed. Although their edit counts seem to be low on both projects. I certainly don't think someone who is essentially a non-contributor should be unilaterally making these types of large changes without prior discussion first, regardless of the merits of making them. It's not like they have bothered to comment about it here, on their talk page, or in any of the CfDs related to this either. So that's on them. -Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nördlich von Großbardau

Bitte diese Kategorie löschen. Ich habe anstatt dessen eine neue Kategorie gebildet, die lautet: „Großbardau, nördlich von“. Es wird zwei weitere Kategorien mit Großbardau + Angabe von Himmelsrichtungen geben. Diese sollen so alle unter „G“ aufgelistet werden. Huth, Andreas (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Huth, Andreas, for future reference, you can put sortkeys, so that categories get listed in the parent category under the specified letter instead of the first letter. You didn't have to rename this category just to have it sorted under the "G" letter. Deltaspace42 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Danke für diesen Hinweis! Andreas Huth, Andreas (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:PNG files

I propose to delete the following subcategories:

These categories are solely based on file type, which is not suitable for the categorization system whatsoever. Special:Search/filemime:png can be used to find all PNG files, not just the 0,01% that are actually categorized in this tree. This issue has been discussed previously e.g. here or here.
The files in these categories should be upmerged to their respective subject categories. (and copied to Category:PNG that should use vector graphics if applicable). ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support. Categorizing files by format is almost never helpful, and certainly not for a format as widely used as PNG. I'd also recommend that Category:PNG photos should simply be removed; "photos" is an inappropriately broad category. If no other content categories are present on files in this category, these files should be marked as uncategorized. Omphalographer (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=deepcategory%3A%22PNG_files%22&ns14=1
a couple of cats are probably needed for maintenance. RoyZuo (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
See also Template:Catsbyfiletype. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ha Giang

This province has been merged with Tuyên Quang (as of 1 st July 2025), categories should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Yen Bai

This province has been merged with Lào Cai (as of 1 st July 2025), categories should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hau Giang

This province has been incorporated into Cần Thơ (as of 1 st July 2025), categories (and all contents) should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ba Ria-Vung Tau

This province has been incorporated into Greater Ho-Chih-Minh-City (as of 1 st July 2025), categories (and all contents) should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Binh Duong

This province has been incorporated into Greater Ho-Chih-Minh-City (as of 1 st July 2025), categories (and all contents) should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
 Keep add to Category:Ho Chi Minh City --Henry (dat) 02:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Category:Hai Duong

This province has been incorporated into Greater haiphong (as of 1 st July 2025), categories (and all contents) should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Quang Nam

This province has been incorporated into Greater Danang (as of 1 st July 2025), categories (and all contents) should follow. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep as a former province and region category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Vietnam

The district as an administrative unit has been completetly abolished in Vietnam, effective 1st July 2025. All categories are obsolete and need to renamed (“former” or “until 2025”) or removed. (Details ) Qualitätssicherung (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Keep and create Category:Former subdivisions of Vietnam to categorize this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
 Keep and recategorize to Category:Former subdivisions of Vietnam from "Subdivisions of Vietnam". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Keep per above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Priesthood (Judaism)

It's a duplicate of Category: Priesthood in ancient Israel Joalbertine (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Joalbertine. Can't think of any distinction.
Convenience link: Category:Priesthood in ancient Israel. - Jmabel ! talk 21:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I should actually add that it might also be regarded as a duplicate of Category:Kohanim. I hesitate because "Kohanim" are the priests (that is the literal meaning of the word in Hebrew), and maybe there is some need to have separate categories for priests (as people) and priesthood (as a position and concept). However, I struggle with that argument, because anything priesthood-related would already be covered by categories related to the tabernacle, the temples in Jerusalem and the Kohanim themselves. Would a general "priesthood in Judaism" (or similar wording) be needed to gather all aforementioned categories together? Maybe. Traditionally, the best umbrella term would be "the Jewish Temple" or similar phrases, as "priests" in Judaism relates specifically to the Kohanim, who are not the only temple workers. Some temple positions were held by the Levites and a few even by Israelites. So "priesthood" might be a confusing term to gather all temple-related categories. Joalbertine (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Jewish priests

It's a duplicate of Category: Kohanim Joalbertine (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

(Convenience link: Category:Kohanim.)
No. There are present-day Kohanim. There have been no priests since the destruction of the Second Temple. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Haunted highways

Nominating for deletion the category that I created. I felt it's not entirely appropriate to have categories of reportedly haunted locations by specific type of the location (like by house, by road etc.). At the very least, limit ghostlore categories here to the categories by location (e.g. Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States), since ghostlore is a subjective and fringe area. The decision may or may not impact Category:Haunted houses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 19:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Elephants

Upmerge to Category:Elephantidae. The term "elephant" often refers to the living elephantids, as well as some extinct non-mammoth elephantids like Category:Palaeoloxodon. So, a separate category for non-mammoth elephantids does not make sense. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:1950s documents of Germany

shouldnt this ( and the following decades) be divided into East and West Germany? Rathfelder (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: Said categories have subcats for individual years, which should be handled the same way, whatever that turns out to be. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Taipei's Nishi Honganji

I think the 's is a typo Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle Then what is the correct name? Just remove the apostrophe and S, or something else? -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:GLAM on Tour im Museum Europäischer Kulturen (2017)

I propose, to unhide this category, otherwise the files will be displayed in Category:All media needing categories as of 2019 NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Fully support this proposal, it can be a subcat of the museum... Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wilmington insurrection of 1898

The event now seems to be more commonly referred to as "The Wilmington massacre". (That is also the title of the related Wikipedia article.) To characterize this event only as an insurrection leaves out the unknown number of the dead, estimates range anywhere from 14 to 300 black residents being killed. So, let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cab-beside-engine terminal tractors

Virtually all terminal tractors are equipped with a semi-cabin. Models with a full-sized cabin hardly exist. Gwafton (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No, they exist. Those are cab-over-engine tractors. --DanTD (talk)
DanTD (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Preserved bus in the UK (LFR 532F)

Delete or redirect, bus not based in the UK. Hullian111 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Moulton Parish Church, Northampton

seems to be the same building as Category:St Peter and St Paul's church, Moulton, Northamptonshire. Not clear if they're conceptually different (there's an adjacent building called "Moulton Parish Church Centre" according to OpenStreetMap) or if "St Peter and St Paul" has simply renamed itself to "Moulton Parish Church". Tæppa (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support merge, even though as noted maps do appear to treat the hall as "Moulton Parish Church" this might be an error and in any case both categories appear to be for the same building rather than 1 for the "original" church and 1 for the hall. There is only 1 image for the centre File:The Parish Church Centre, Moulton - geograph.org.uk - 2581379.jpg which shows both the "original" church and the centre so we probably don't need a separate category at least yet for the centre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Males in masks

These categories contain people, thus:

Also, "in" or "wearing"? The latter contains Category:Men wearing masks in the United States. Also also, as that category is for individual specific men:

On a pedantic note, the subcategories there are "<Name> wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic" and unless the people in question were wearing more than one mask at a time, they should probably be "<Name> wearing a mask..." instead.

Also also also: there are a whole lot of "Males in" categories. Should they be added to this?

— Hex • talk 13:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support renaming to "male people" for almost all "males" categories, as long as "males" refers to "male people" and not other male creatures. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified files from the General Services Administration

I propose this category be a subcategory to Category:Files from the General Services Administration, United States instead of them both being subcategories to Category:General Services Administration, United States. Is there a reason they both are ”sibling categories” to a common parent category instead of the one being parent to the other? Courtesy ping @Dominic. Jonteemil (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Election apportionment diagrams of municipal elections in Germany

I have created this category to remain consistent with other countries. However, I realise there are already those categories: c:Category:Election apportionment diagrams of local elections in Hesse -> should we prefer the name municipal elections or local elections in Germany ? Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

"local elections" is the better term for Germany because it is broader. This type of elections includes, in most states of Germany, the two most prominent levels of municipalities ("Städte und Gemeinden") and districts ("Kreise, Landkreise"), but also lower levels (see en:Stadtbezirk), and partially, in some states, other distinctive levels. 2003:E5:3732:E500:A8A5:9A57:5F10:5DA9 15:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Louvre INV 2520 recto

all other drawings from the codex have no cat. of their own, which is also way better (than to every single sheet behind another click) MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Quatres têtes d'hommes ; un oiseau ; un archer mongol ; un moine (INV 2325, Recto)

all other drawings from the codex have no cat. of their own, which is also way better (than to every single sheet behind another click) MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Doldam

Think should be merged to Category:Stone culture of Jeju-do; see en:Doldam for context. Doldam is Jeju's stone culture. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:AI slop

Is there any criteria for which images belongs here? Or are users just free to throw in any AI images that they personally do not like? Trade (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Should be limited to images which deliberately demonstrate the concept of "AI slop", like Category:Shrimp Jesus. Most of what's in the category should probably just be deleted if unused; we aren't building a "weird and funny AI images" collection here. Omphalographer (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
"Should be limited to images which deliberately demonstrate the concept of "AI slop", like Category:Shrimp Jesus." Who exactly are entitled to make that decision? Commons users? The prompt author? Reliable third party sources? Trade (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
There are plenty of low-quality AI images on Commons, but I consider those that I added "AI slop" to be meme content. I took "of little-to-no value" in mind when I added those images. SelfCloak (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
isnt that just a petty way to insult other users pictures Trade (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, but the other users didn’t create those pictures anyway Dronebogus (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
 Delete: pejorative and subjective descriptor. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:KK110

I suspect that the name is a misnomer, an individual vehicle number mistaken for a (nonexistent) model name. These rollers look exactly like current production Hamm HD 120, but without Hamm lettering. A relabelled original or an exact unlicensed copy (the latter very unlikely; common Chinese types don't mimic the Hamm look). At any rate, I need a second opinion before disbanding it. Retired electrician (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Video games by actor

This is better suited for Wikidata or IMDB Trade (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support. Commons is not IMdb / IGDB. This example is particularly egregious given how rarely voice / motion capture actors appear in freely licensed video game media (which is often limited to logos). Omphalographer (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
 Delete, see also this discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Films by actor --ReneeWrites (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
 Delete. for reasons stated above. Trivialist (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Nature of Wörth am Rhein

Die Präposition „Nature of ...“ bezieht sich auf den Charakter eines Objekts, während sich „Nature in ...“ auf den Naturraum eines Areals bezieht. Ist es nicht so? Syntaxys (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Syntaxys: In general English usage, yes, you are right. However, we don't have categories called "Nature of" that are for the first meaning you mention, so I don't think there would be confusion in our category names. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
It's just a matter of getting it right when creating a required category. For “Nature in ...” I found 18,028 results, for “Nature of ...” there are 168,650 results. The “wrong” English seems to be more popular 😉 Syntaxys (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@Syntaxys: Does that 18,028 include categories like Category:Nature in 1046, Category:Nature in April, and similar categories? There are a lot of those. They should use "in" because they don't refer to a place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I had searched for “Nature in”, which also contains such designations. Of course, they should stay that way. I didn't want to question the category “Nature of Wörth am Rhein” in general, I just wanted to clarify which spelling is the right one. We may think about renaming it.
It would be good if the name of a category did not determine its uniqueness, but was represented solely by an ID. The name is only an attribute of an object and i18n of a category would then not be a problem. Guess this could be solved very easily via SDC - I am surprised that this is not already being done. Syntaxys (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@Syntaxys: The main category Category:Nature refers to the "natural space of an area". There are different categories that cover the different "characters of an object". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States

There is an ongoing dispute about whether this should have been renamed from Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  • my opinion is that this rename was a mistake. The name should be "Patriachal Parishes in the United States" as this is the official name of the body in question. It should be renamed back, and the original category deleted. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rename per the Universality Principle and how similar subjects are categorized. Essentially, there is no Category:Patriarchal Parishes. The closest thing that would work as a parent here is Category:Parishes but the definition for that category is a "district, where a priest preaches and exercises ecclesiastical duties." Buildings obviously aren't "districts." Further, there's already a CfD to rename the category since "parishes" can refer to government level subdivisions. I assume if an organization where to call itself the "Patriarchal States in the United States" we wouldn't categorize it under Category:Categories of the United States by state or act like it's a secondary, shadow government entity outside of normal states. Otherwise, what would the alternative be? Category:Patriarchal States in the United States by state by state or some nonsense?
These categories aren't even about church districts anyway. So it's nonsensical to subcategorize them under "parishes." There is Category:Parish churches but IMO Category:Patriarchal Parish parish churches in the United States is just convoluted, and again, they aren't parishs in any meaningful sense anyway. So the only thing that makes sense here is Category:Buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States. The parent category for this is Category:Russian Orthodox Church in the United States anyway. It's ridiculous to draw a line here and say calling the category "Russian Orthodox Church" is denying the existence of the organization when that's the parent category is called. There's no reason the afflation of specific churches can't just be stored on Wikidata either. Categories aren't suppose to be complete ontologies. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: If you follow your logic, then you should rename "The United States of America" to "Territories in North America". It's universal. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, permit a category for all things of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States. This might include things like bishops, priests, Easter parades, afternon tea with visiting dignitaries.

This would have as a child the buildings category below. If / when we have images of bishops we can includes future categories such as

Secondly, group all buildings togther (because they are just buildings) as follows:

By the way, it would appear that there is a difference between "The Russian Orthodox Church" and "a Russian Orthodox Church". For that reason, I created the category Category:Eastern Orthodox church buildings of the Russian tradition in the United States by church body. This explicitly acknowledges that there are at least four church bodies operating in the United States that are affiliated with Eastern Orthodoxy of the Russian tradition. They are: Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Old Believers, Orthodox Church in America and Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Parishes in the USA. So the parenting of Category:Churches of Patriarchal Parishes in the United States to Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country is problematic since the latter is usually reserved for those church buildings that are unequivically under the Omophorion of the Patriarch of Moscow. Members of Old Believers might not like to be so categorised. So while all four are in the Russian "family" of Eastern Orthodoxy, I imagine that they would not all want to be associated with The ROC.

Therefore the parental catgories for church buildings are:

Therefore the parental catgories for church bodies are:

Furthermore, my alternative proposal includes the renaming of Category:Churches of Patriarchal Parishes in the United States to Category:Church buildings of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States. This is the name that I moved it to before the move was reverted by Ыфь77. Furthermore, my alternative proposal includes the renaming of Category:Patriarchal Parishes in the United States to Category:Deanery of the Russian Orthodox Church in the United States. This name reflects the fact it is a canonical structure of the Russian Orthodox Church. Typical canonical structires are parishes / deaneries / eparchies / metropolises / patriarchates. The proposed name also avoids confusion with parishes such as those that may be found in the Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church. Such parishes are typically no bigger than a town; the ROC parish, on the other hand, seems to encompass the entire USA.

Thanks for you attention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Если Вы думаете, что я буду переводить эту простыню текста, то Вы ошибаетесь. Короче, пожалуйста. Ыфь77 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Online translation: I see an attempt to avoid discussion: no one wants to understand so many letters. --Ыфь77 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mutton

Somewhat ambiguous category, considering that "mutton" commonly refers to Category:Goat meat in India rather than Category:Sheep meat. Probably disambiguate between Category:Goat meat and Category:Sheep meat. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that those two categories are more precise, but here's a problem, if i upload a photo of a mutton dish, but i cannot figure out if it's goat or sheep, where does that photo go? RoyZuo (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
 Comment No change needed. Goat or sheep meat are fine to use as sibling categories if it's known but neither is necessary; "Mutton" is by itself a clear enough scope. --ReneeWrites (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Neglected and underutilised species

Is this category useful at all? Neglected, underutilized seems rather ambiguous. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  • The term and the acronym NUS seem to be well established by FAO and other international bureaucracies. A synonym orphan crop is likewise adopted by other international bureaucracies. Their efforts may be taken at face value or not, but the term itself is not ambiguous at all. Any crop that does not make it into, say, top 10 consumed in a specific region (the focus is usually limited to backward global south) - is deemed neglected. Retired electrician (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this makes for a good Commons category. Per Wikipedia, "there is no consensus on what defines an underutilised crop", and what criteria do exist for designating a species as "neglected and underutilized" are quite subjective. Omphalographer (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
How about (...) according to XYZorg? I must admit, underused crops are not my forte. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
There can be no clear-cut worldwide list - what's "neglected" here may be a common staple there ... it's all about POV of the speaker. And this, indeed, does not get along well with categorization. Retired electrician (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. It has to work within our category system and logic. The only other way I see is a gallery page. Maybe a gallery would be easier anyway. ----Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:2013 texts

20,924 files, all put there autmatically. This because they all contain something like date = {{Published on|2013-07-28}} which generates this. Is there any way of changing this? Rathfelder (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: do I understand that this is strictly about the files that are currently directly in this category, not about the existence or name of this category, or what its parent or child categories are? - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. Same problem with the following years. Ive been working through the text by year files, but I cant do these one at a time. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Looks like this is being assigned automatically by {{Published on}}. (It also assigns categories for the bare date, e.g. a bunch of these EU documents also end up in Category:2013-01-04.) I'd support disabling that automatic categorization across the board; it's fundamentally inflexible and contributes to overpopulated categories. Omphalographer (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes please. How can that be done?
It also happens with
| Date = {{Taken on|07-09-2018}} Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
But {{Taken on}} puts things in what are at least intended to be hidden categories. If they aren't hidden, then someone is doing things wrong in setting up the categories.. - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
It does look like it assigns some bad categories to audio and text files, e.g. "YEAR texts" and "Audio files of YEAR". Omphalographer (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. As I understood it, {{Taken on}} is supposed to be used only on photographs. - Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Natural monuments in Sankt Veit im Pongau

there is only a single natural monument in the municipality, across Austria natural monuments are categorized per district, in this case category:Natural monuments in Bezirk St. Johann im Pongau. Neither systematic nor number of monuments make this cat useful -> move the element up and delete this cat. Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kujuku-ojis

Should be changed to something like "The Ninety-Nine Ōji" or "The Ninety-Nine Ōji Shrines" because the current title is an invalid pluralization and it does not make it clear that this is a group Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tokusen Jimmyōchō

Should be renamed to Tokusen Jinmyōchō since that is a better romanization Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Jimbocho Station (in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan). "神保町" (じんぼうちょう) is spelled "Jimbocho". This is the common Hepburn romaji notation on Japanese stations and other.
Namba Station (in Osaka, Osaka, Japan). "難波" (なんば) is spelled "Namba". This is the common Hepburn romaji notation on Japanese stations and other.
Jimmuji Station (in Zushi, Kanagawa, Japan). "神武寺" (じんむじ) is spelled "Jimmuji". This is the common Hepburn romaji notation on Japanese stations and other.
  •  Disagree Immanuelle's argument goes against the rules of traditional Hepburn Romanization in Japan. --Scanyaro (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Note

Category:Jimmyōchō Kōshō (dodai)

Should be renamed to Jinmyōchō Kōshō (dodai) proper romanization Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Jimbocho Station (in Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan). "神保町" (じんぼうちょう) is spelled "Jimbocho". This is the common Hepburn romaji notation on Japanese stations and other.
Namba Station (in Osaka, Osaka, Japan). "難波" (なんば) is spelled "Namba". This is the common Hepburn romaji notation on Japanese stations and other.
Jimmuji Station (in Zushi, Kanagawa, Japan). "神武寺" (じんむじ) is spelled "Jimmuji". This is the common Hepburn romaji notation on Japanese stations and other.
  •  Disagree Immanuelle's argument goes against the rules of traditional Hepburn Romanization in Japan. --Scanyaro (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Note


Category:Gohonzons

Change to Category:Gohonzon of Nichiren since the current name is highly ambiguous Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Orleans Parish, Louisiana

"Orleans Parish" and "New Orleans" are legally the same thing. This category and their subcats should be redicted towards their New Orleans equivalent instead Trade (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Agree. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    I do have to admit it feels weird to delete something with 135 WP articles Trade (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    Yes - but are there really non-duplicating articles about it? I'm doubting. Looking at the en:w article, I don't see anything that isn't New Orleans, summarized duplicate information. Looking at en:w categories, I see articles about sections of the city that are categorized as both "Orleans Parish, Louisiana" and "Neighborhoods in New Orleans". Really, the latter would suffice. I see in es:w the link just goes to the "Nueva Orleans" article, while the it:w article "Parrocchia di Orleans" is just a couple sentences basically noting that it's New Orleans -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    Early on in Commons I thought maybe something might come up occasionally that was specifically "Orleans Parish" and not "New Orleans", maybe something historic from the early 19th century, but over 20 years later I've yet to encounter anything that can't just be categorized in a "New Orleans" subcategory. In both law and geography "New Orleans" and "Orleans Parish" are the same thing. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I feel strongly that any subcategories should be made redirects or deleted - there is zero point for a separate "Category:Culture of Orleans Parish, Louisiana". We don't usually have multiple separate categories for the same thing under different names. I feel slightly less strongly about this parent category, but if kept for some organizational reason it should have no media and only subcategory should be Category:New Orleans, and maybe a hatnote explaining they are the same thing. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hachidai Ryūō Mizu Shrine

Move to Category:Hachidai Ryūō Shrines since this is actually multiple shrines for the same deity Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Works

I have serious doubts about how useful this category actually is to organize media. Like there's categories for buildings in here. Along with ones for artificial fog. Then on top of it you have all the thousands of single subcat "works by year" categories that are just circular and just lead to single subcat categories, Etc. Etc. The whole thing is a pointless game of Russian nesting dolls. Not to say that I think it should be deleted outright, but the scope really needs to be made clearer and the 15 "works by year" deep fileless category chains this is causing need to be dealt with. Possibly by turning it into a DAB. I don't know, but the category system is clearly to ambiguous and doesn't work with how it is currently. Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hhhmmm interesting. Now that I looked apparently Category:Work is a DAB to. So it makes sense to turn this into one. I don't think making the word plural really changes anything about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Jürgensplatz (Düsseldorf)

Der Stadtrat der Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf hat in seiner Sitzung am Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2025, beschlossen, den Jürgensplatz im Stadtbezirk 3 in "Edith-Fürst-Straße" und die Platzfläche vor dem Polizeipräsidium und dem Ministerium für Heimat, Kommunales, Bau und Digitalisierung in "Am Polizeipräsidium" umzubenennen. Die Veröffentlichung der Umbenennungen im Düsseldorfer Amtsblatt wird voraussichtlich nach der Sommerpause erfolgen. Mit dieser öffentlichen Bekanntgabe erhalten die neuen Straßennamen jeweils ihre Gültigkeit. Jula2812 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Category „Jürgensplatz (Düsseldorf)“ bekommt eine Weiterleitung zu "Edith-Fürst-Straße" (mit Umbenennungs-Historie), Alles wird nach dort verschoben. Wer Lust hat, kann versuchen es aufzubröseln und die entsprechenden Hausnummern nach "Am Polizeipräsidium" verschieben (mit Umbenennungs-Historie). So etwa? -- Kürschner (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Nur aus dem Vorplatz des Düsseldorfer Polizeipräsidiums wird "Am Polizeipräsidium". siehe Karte https://duesseldorf.canto.de/v/P8NKPS1JTA/album/NFIG1?display=curatedView&viewIndex=0&column=document&id=nkoqao0rit3pn64j2utftvkp2o
So wird vermutlich Jürgensplatz Nr. 1 und Nr. 3 vom Ministerium (welches noch Zugang auf der Hubertus Str. 7 und Neusser Str. 20 hat), und Jürgensplatz Nr. 5 vom Polizeipräsidium zu "Am Polizeipräsidium".
Die Straße davor mit den zum größten Teil denkmalgeschützten Häusern wird zur "Edith-Fürst-Straße". Mit der könnte man ja anfangen. In die Category:Edith-Fürst-Straße (Düsseldorf) und rename|New name.jpg|3|Misspelled.
Glaube so einfach ist das nicht mit der Weiterleitung und noch ist diese nicht auf https://maps.duesseldorf.de/?Categories=all&Themenkarte=gesamt benamst. Jula2812 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Naja, warten wir mal ab, bis das endgültig ist. -- Kürschner (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Charlotte Buildings Over 60 meters

This seems at least poorly named. At the very least, "buildings" and "over" should not be capitalized mid-name; possibly should be renamed Category:Buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina over 60 meters; but also possibly we do not need it at all, since we already have categories like Category:100-149-meter-tall buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Delete. Standard practice is to organize these categories by 50m ranges (cf. Category:Buildings by height), and categories which do that already exist for Charlotte. I don't see the purpose of this category unless the measurement of 60m has some unusual significance to this city. Omphalographer (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Baker's dozen

This one is unclear. Seems like just a group of 13 with a cultural name. But it is used for this packing geometry. So if this is a specific pattern then I suggest something like Category:Baker's dozen (packing geometry) Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment The files depict 13 items being "packed" in a rectangular space. These images are used on Wikipedia to depict a baking tray with 13 loaves. The Dutch Wikipedia article for baker's dozen mentions that 13 is the highest amount that fit on a baking tray and these images demonstrate that principle. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Feminism and society

My question here is if there's anything having to do with feminism that doesn't inherently involve society somehow. Otherwise, this category should be up-merged since there's a guideline against intersectional categories like this one. Or conversely, it could possibly be renamed to Category:Feminism in society but I don't think that's any better since everything having to do with feminism takes place in society. Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Also, Category:Casual sex should not be a subcat here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Also agreed. This feels like a somewhat arbitrary collection of topics related tangentially to feminism and women's rights; it doesn't make for a good category. And Category:Casual sex is hardly the only weird subcategory; Category:Barefoot women and Category:Cat ladies are strange choices as well, and I'm not even sure what Category:Gender script or Category:Hawksian woman are supposed to represent. Omphalographer (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Subfields by academic discipline

Category:Subfields doesn't seem to be a thing on here and Category:Fields has to do with agricultural land, which this category obviously has no connection to. Then on top of it's not really clear what makes something a subfield, field, or whatever anyway. Like is Genetics a field of biology or a subfield of it? Or is biology a field? It could be a subfield of the life sciences for all we know. It's certainly not agricultural land. Most of the time these types of "by whatever" meta categories are "by subject" or "by topic" anyway. I think that should be the action here. Everything in this category should be merged to ones by subject or topic. In fact, I'm going to do that if there's no objections.

BTW, apparently there's categories for "specialties", "branches", and "disciplines" along with this. Clearly not all of them need to or should exist since they are all essentially about the same thing. So probably the other ones should be merged to "by subject" and gotten rid of as well. Although I'm not going to do that right now, but it is another point towards getting rid of this category. Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Historical maps of ethnic groups in Europe

The category name is structurally outdated: We don't have "Historical maps" on Commons, but either "Old maps" (older than 70 years) and "Maps showing history" (with various subgroups, like "Maps of the history of" / "Maps of XY in Zth century".) See also Template:Old maps meaning and Template:TFOMC}}
There also have been CfDs to get rid of "historical images of..."-categories --> "Historical" and "historic" are not self-explanatory category names.
Most files in this category are old ethnographic maps, so proposal is to rename into "Old maps of ethnic groups in Europe" (parallel to the contemporary branches that go without "old"). Maps then still found in the subcategories that are not old, can be moved to the applicable "maps showing history..." category. Enyavar (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of Nazism by country

there is an unconsolidated mess with subcategory names: Nazism vs. National Socialism. I do not get the subtle difference. I would prefer to move everything (back) to National Socialism, e.g. Category:Monuments and memorials to victims of National Socialism in Austria. @Nebula84912: as the main initiator. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion on this topic remains open, and the arguments supporting the proposed change are available here. If you have new information or perspectives, I welcome further contributions to the conversation. Nebula84912 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Italian paintings

Where does this category fit in the general tree for paintings? Alavense (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be the same as Category:Paintings of Italy. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
No, it is Category:Paintings from Italy. Category:Paintings of Italy is for paintings depicting Italy. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books by country

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/09/Category:Books of Italy.
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/08/Category:Books by country.

There are a lot more countries listed in Category:Books by country of origin. No explanation of what distinguishes the two categories. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge it. There is no difference. Allforrous (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
There is a difference: Category:Books by country of origin is the parent category for all "Books from [country]“ categories about the different countries only.
Category:Books by country is its parent category and the parent category for all other book categories by country: Books by publisher by country, Books by country by century, Books by country by decade, Books by country by function, Books by country by language, Books by country by subject, Books by country by year, Books by country of function, Books by country of origin, Books by country by index, and in addition all those that are sorted with "#“ or with "*", look at all those subcategories at the beginning. It holds those subcategories together. Therefore, it can’t be deleted as their parent category.
But the subcategories "Books of [country]" about the different countries could be deleted, because nearly no one understands the difference between "Books of country X" and "Books from country X". If they will be deleted and removed from Category:Books by country, it will be clear at once that this category serves only as parent category for all those others. —176.1.9.217 16:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Further discussion please only there, there are already more participants and arguments:

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/08/Category:Books by country.

—176.1.9.217 17:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Colored objects

This whole category scheme seems fundamentally flawed and goes against the rule that categories are suppose to be for defining characteristics of what's being depicted in the image. For one, it assumes that there are "uncolored objects", which is just nonsense as all objects have a color. So it could apply to pretty much any image of an object on here (that doesn't even get into black and white photographs where the objects have colors even if we can't see them).

Secondly, the whole "objects by color" thing just seems completely arbitrary and pointless. As there's nothing actually in common between a red fire hydrant and a red postage stamp outside of the color. Whereas, as the color of a stamp isn't defining in most, if not all, instances. Nor is it uniform. Let alone objective. For instance the stamps in Category:Red stamps look brown, red, or orange depending on how I tweak my monitor settings. "Shades" aren't a reliable way to categorize things. So I think these categories need to be cut back or completely gotten rid of. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with keeping the few "by color" categories where it actually matters, but with how things currently are these are just meaningless dumps for random photographs of objects that have nothing in common. Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment #1
What is the opposite of monotone (black, gray, white)? Colored?
"Colored" is ambiguous word. I think this is what "fundamentally flawed". chromatic or achromatic.
About 2ndly - That is a good suggestion. But, broad discussion is needed. I think that shouldn't be said like in only narrow here. For example, in Category talk:Colors?
No problem, Red fire hydrants and Red postage stamps are in "other category space in commons", not mixed.
It's not just only my opinion. Fundamentally, It is useful to color separate. (Category:Automobiles by color since 2007)
"look brown, red, or orange" - It may be necessary roughly catgories. (Category:Red tone, Category:Yellow tone, Category:Blue tone?)
But, first of all, Web colors have 6 digits Color code (#000000 - #FFFFFF). We can judge from that strictly. Thanks.--Benzoyl (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
 Comment #2
Renamed. Because, Most of tires are colored "carbon black". --Benzoyl (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from Austria-Hungary

This should not be in Books from Yugoslavia or Books from Czechoslovakia Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I am for adding "See also categories" like Category:Books from Margraviate of Moravia (1867–1918) Skim (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Members of Ratsversammlung (Kiel)

Rename Category:Members of Ratsversammlung (Kiel) to Category:Councillors of Kiel (0 entries moved, 72 to go) (Requested by Kochel86) Commons:Categories/en#Category_names; Category:City councillors by country; Category:Councillors of Hamburg

Category:Jungian archetypes

Broad categories should not be placed under Category:Jungian archetypes, supposedly a concept in a specific school of thought? such listing is more appropriate for wikipedia or wikidata. Trade (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from Greece by year

These should go into books by country by year Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Cycling expedition: Düsseldorf-cape Nordkap-Düsseldorf 2019

Categories are not ment to document personal expeditions, there are no Wikipedia articles to show that this expedition is encyclopedic. DovaModaal (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Training 200-km bike ride March 27, 2019.

Categories are not ment to document personal training rides, there are no Wikipedia articles to show that this training bike ride is encyclopedic. DovaModaal (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Training 100-km bike ride March 20, 2019.

Categories are not ment to document personal training rides, there are no Wikipedia articles to show that this training bike ride is encyclopedic. DovaModaal (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Alexej Potupin

No Wikipedia articles or other sources that prove that this person is notable DovaModaal (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

See user info by Velopilger. Maybe this could be transformed into a "personal photos" subcategory of Category:User:Velopilger. Note: Wikidata item and infobox were created/added by another user and a bot. ~2025-42695-17 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:People depicted in Spiezer Chronik

People depicted in a book? there're millions of books in the world and each of them could depict tens of people. some people appeared in thousands of books.

this category scheme is not useful. such listing should be on wikipedia or wikidata.  Delete. RoyZuo (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo, do you want to apply your deletion request only to this category, or do you want to expand to all the sub-categories in this category?
You do understand that this (and the others) are not just any odd book, but historic manuscripts, so there is a specific interest to list the historic people depicted especially in illustrated historic manuscripts from the specific time.  Keep Wuselig (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=deepcategory:Books_from_NDL_digital_collection+繪
here're easily 3000+ more books from a single library, that depict some historical figures, and are as historic as whatever files you refer to.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=filetype:pdf+charlemagne+illustrated
4000+ pdf that probably depict charlemagne.
Category:Thirteen Emperors Scroll depicts liu bei File:Liu Bei Tang.jpg, who as the main character of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, has been depicted in thousands of, if not more, books/paintings in history.
notable historic figures are not defined by what artistic works depict them. RoyZuo (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
"a specific interest to list the historic people depicted"
commons cat tree is not designed for that purpose. listing is appropriate using wikitext on a page anywhere you like, or wikidata, but not using cat tree on commons. that fucks up the cat tree: for this specific case, Bern > ... > Spiezer Chronik > ... > Jan Hus > ... what connection do bern and hus have? presumably only this single file File:Spiezer Chronik Jan Hus 1485.jpg. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RoyZuo (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It is not about "a specific interest to list the historic people depicted". There is no interest here in creating this category for millions of books and it is not about in how many books a specific person is depicted. It is just the other way around. It is about how much we can find out about contemporary (or contemporary to the time the manuscript/book is about) people that are mentioned in this manuscript. So looking at this category I can see how relevant the Spiezer Chronical is. I could even imagine, that some Wikimedia-Volunteer finds the time to create a Category Events depicted in Spiezer Chronik, it would be as valuable for historians. And again, it would not be about in how many and which books these events are mentioned. --Wuselig (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
While I agree that cataloguing the people who are mentioned at some point in the text of a manuscript is an important task, it is not a task which Commons is suited to. Categories like Category:People depicted in Spiezer Chronik are not terribly useful, especially as they provide no way for users to determine how and where those people are mentioned. However, categories which are used to categorize specific visual depictions in documents, like Category:People depicted in Codex Bodley, are much more useful and should be kept. Omphalographer (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
So you would suggest categorizing like this would make more sense. I could follow that line. Wuselig (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. That way, if you start from a category for a person and drill down into one of these subcategories, you end up with depictions of that person in this manuscript, and if you start from the manuscript and drill down from there, you end up with specific images from that manuscript. There's no "false path" from a manuscript to other media of a person who happened to be mentioned in the document. Omphalographer (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, so if we can reach this consensus here, perhaps @Mhmrodrigues, who created this category can make the necessary steps. Wuselig (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @RoyZuo: ! Given that I created the category I'll vote obviously  Keep. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Omphalographer and Wuselig: ! Agreed with your idea, I'll do this with the other persons of this book. I also thought that, if you agree, that for persons that already have subcategories in miniature , that these in Spiezer Chronik categories should be inside the in miniature ones (Apparently none has, I checked). But what about other books? Look at Category:People depicted by manuscript! I can't do all these by myself... Can you help? Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer and Wuselig: , done for the Spiezer Chronik categories! In fact I found that Category:Jan Hus actually had an example of the in art category (Category:Jan Hus in art), to which I added the subcategory in miniature (Category:Jan Hus in miniature), where I transferred his portrayals in miniatures. I inserted the Category:Jan Hus in Spiezer Chronik as subcategory of the in miniature one. Please see fo yourselves. Greetings! Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Concealment

The Wikidata item associated with this category (cover-up (Q1229735) - "attempt to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or failures") is at odds with the actual contents of the category, which are mostly about literal concealment, e.g. Category:Fig leaves as covers, Category:Disguise, etc. Is the criminal notion of concealment a significant enough topic on Commons that it should be reclaimed for this use, or should the Wikidata item be changed? Additionally: how is this distinct from the subcategory Category:Hiding? Omphalographer (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think "Concealment" is intentional while "Hiding" can be unintentional, but yes, often the both terms are used synonymously. Avron (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Museum of Pop Culture (2002)

Ought to be Category:Museum of Popular Culture in 2002. The parenthesization like this in category names is would imply that these were different buildings of the same name dating from these various years, clearly not the case here.Similarly for other similarly named categories for different years. Jmabel ! talk 06:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Further, it is not clear that this breakdown by year is particularly useful, especially since it would seem that the events of those years (the only thing that was really different from year to year) are not currently included in these categories. - Jmabel ! talk 06:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Also relates to:

- Jmabel ! talk 06:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Review

It appears that the effort was designed to move images of the building into a separate category. Eliminating the categories involved would return over 100 images into the uncategorized list. There are already categories to separate out events, collections, and exhibits. The Category:Museum of Pop Culture has several images that need to be placed into these categories. That still leaves the 100+ images of the building.

Here, the Category:Museum of Pop Culture is a striking architectural design and there are over 100 images. During its lifetime, the building has had several names: Experience Music Project, Experience Music Project and Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame (or EMP|SFM), and EMP Museum until settling on the current Museum of Popular Culture. Checking w:List of works by Frank Gehry the designer, the only name given is the Museum of Pop Culture. The Wikipedia article referenced the w:Category:Guggenheim Museum Bilbao as being similar, so I did a quick check. It has Category:Collections of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Category:Interior of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, and Category:Guggenheim Museum Bilbao at night. Again, no category of the exterior of the building. The Category:Guggenheim Museum Bilbao has 603 images uncategorized. More than half of these images are the exterior of the building. That's 300 or more images.

An option is needed for when the museum building is of interest with a volume of images that make the primary category unwieldly. A check of Category:Museums in Washington (state) suggest that this may be the only case of 100+ museums that doesn't already have a solution. Suggestion:

  1. Museum categories should use categories base on "collections", "exhibits" or "events" to manage images in a meaningful way. See Category:Interiors of museums in Washington (state)
  2. Museum ships already use the name of the ship, separate from any building-based museum. See Category:Columbia River Maritime Museum in Oregon as an example.
  3. Museums in historic structure use the name of the historic structure for the building. See Category:Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park (Seattle).
  4. Museums which have an uncategorized list of images in large numbers, for me that's 200 plus or soon to exceed 200, use an exterior category. Note, I did not find any such categories for museum, but for historic structures, it has been done, Category:Exterior of the Meeker Mansion.Chris Light (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Move all the affected images into a new Category:Exterior of the Museum of Pop Culture and eliminate the annual categories. If and when this category becomes unwieldly, consideration can be given to sub-categories based on decades, centuries, facades or whatever those editors wish to use.Chris Light (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  • Exactly. - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of awards

This feels suspiciously like yet another instance of misusing categories as metadata ("person X received award Y"). Trade (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As discussed at Commons:Village pump#Category:Recipients of awards, there are at least a few subcategories for major, career-defining awards which should probably be kept, e.g. Category:Nobel laureates. But most of these are not significant to Commons. I would propose that we start by removing all categories where there is no media at all on Commons directly related to the award, e.g. Category:Bessie Award winners, or Category:Sappho Award and Category:Sappho Award laureates. Categories where there is some media related to the award, like Category:Saturn Awards and Category:Saturn Award winners, can be considered separately. Omphalographer (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
are Category:Saturn Award winners really needed Trade (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Probably not. But my intent here is to start by deleting categories for awards which aren't relevant to Commons at all, then consider the much smaller remainder separately. Omphalographer (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
 Info The archived discussion can be found here. Nakonana (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright, current proposal is now to delete any subcategory which does not contain any files related to the award and which only consists of subcategories of award recipients. Any objections? @RoyZuo, Omphalographer, Nakonana, Jmabel, Adamant1, ReneeWrites, and Mike Peel: --Trade (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I'm not sure I understand that. So Category:FUBAR Award would still be kept, and contain lots of subcategories of award recipients, as long as we had one image of the FUBAR Award itself, or the FUBAR Award ceremony? But if we don't have any images directly related to the FUBAR Award, then no matter how prestigious or notable, we don't have a category for it at all? Or am I misunderstanding? - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes Trade (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Even if it was a category for noble prize laureates? (just hypothetically)
This doesn't seem to have been the result of the previous discussion, I think? Nakonana (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: , @Trade: , @Jmabel: , @Omphalographer: I created a list of categories for recipients for what I think are pretty average awards below this. IMO the best way to go about this would to agree on getting rid of at least those categories as a starting point. Then we can do bulk deletion requests going forward based on the type of award, who is giving it out, Etc. Etc. Just doing a bulk deletion request for every category on here that has to do with award recipients regardless of the award or anything else doesn't seem like a good way to go about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally think that would be appropriate (except maybe the Leeuwenhoek Medal, which I gather is a very big deal), but I'd really like to build a broader consensus somewhere other than just this DR. Also, this is bound to ruffle feathers, so @Adamant1 given some of your recent history, I think you should not proceed on making those edits unless and until there is a very clear consensus to point to. There are plenty of less contentious things for you to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on being the one to do it. It should be up to whomever closes the CfD to deal with, that obviously wouldn't be me since I'm involved in it (and participated in the Village Pump discussion) though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
"I'd really like to build a broader consensus somewhere other than just this DR." And how do you propose we do that? This issue have already been brought onto project chat Trade (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

List of categories for award recipients

Category:Images by Russian text

Most, if not, all of these categories seem like pointless overcategorization. Like if you look at File:Vilaĝo Dubrovnoje (Tjumena provinco) 22.jpg it contains 15 different single file categories for every word on the gravestone. Most of these categories only contain a single file or subcategory. It's totally meaningless minutia that doesn't help people find images what-so-ever. Pinging people involved in similar discussions @Trade: , @Omphalographer: , @ReneeWrites: , @Jmabel: . Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That usage seems ridiculous to me, especially because the text in question in that image is barely legible. This isn't a concordance, it's a media repository. @RG72: what is your intent here? Who could possibly be looking for long inscriptions that incidentally include "На" or "Во"? (And, sure, it is relevant that it has "ВЧК", "ПВ", "КГБ"; those are probably worth keeping, at least the organizational categories if not the text categories.).- Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
A lack of guidelines on how "Images by text by language" categories are supposed to be used is part of the problem i feel. Trade (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I started creating these categories after seeing similar categories created by other users. In my experience, such categories can be useful. For example, I found this useful when creating a wiki textbook on the Russian language, when I needed to find illustrations with certain words. However, for me, all this is not essential. I created these categories because similar ones already existed. If the community decides that they are not needed, I will not object and fight for their preservation. ̴̃RG72 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ethiopia Orthodox Churcu Healing

Clearly "Ethiopia" should be "Ethiopian", "Churcu" should be "Church" and "Healing" should not be capitalized but I am not clear of the scope of this category, since its only parent is Category:Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Is this about Category:Faith healing or something else? Jmabel ! talk 22:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Images from the United States government

All other categories are named "Images from the government of X" so this one should too Trade (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Telegram Messenger

Virtuallny nobody calls Telegram by it's official name "Telegram Messenger". We should just call it Telegram like everyone else Trade (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade:  Keep — We already have Category:Telegrams, so create a dab page between social app and telegrams at Category:Telegram. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
How about just Telegram (instant messaging app) Trade (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Move I have moved it to Category:Telegram (instant messenger) few years ago, but someone restored it for no reason. It just should follow ENWP. Eurohunter (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Elephants of India

Merge/diffuse most of the subcats to Category:Elephas maximus indicus in India, as Elephas maximus indicus is the only subspecies of elephants native to India. Category:Elephants of India should be used mainly for foreign species/subspecies of elephants kept in India as captives. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Postcards published in the United States

@Adamant1: has unilaterally depopulated and redirected categories related to where postcards are published. As we have categorization for where books, magazines, sheet music, posters, etc are published, I don't see why this should not be allowed for postcards. I think this at least deserves discussion rather than unilateral destruction without notice. Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't "uniterally" do anything. I told you this has already discussed multiple times in other places and it was decided that images of postcards shouldn't be categorized by location of publication because there's no way to determine it (as the example on my talk page shows). The location of publication is already categorized by having caterogries for publishers anyway. That's it only exists in Louisiana and your the only one pushing for it. Your just being tendentious and using the CfD process as a bad faithed derailing tactic. @Stefan Kühn: Can you confirm that this has already and that postcards aren't generally categorized by the place of publication please since Infrogmation of New Orlean apparently didn't get it the five other times I told him? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
You were indeed taking action that included actions without advance discussion nor any explanation on some images which I'd uploaded and categorized. As such were on my watch list, I at first thought you merely made some sort of mistake - you recategorized postcards that showed places other than New Orleans as "postcards of New Orleans", so I reverted and explained the reason on your talk page. Only a little later I noticed it was apparently as part of some rearrangement of categories - including empyting and redirecting categories for reason that was not immediately evident to me nor did I see any explanation. As these actions included a category I created, it was in my watch list. I saw no notice on the category talk page, no notice on my talk page, nor explanation on the edits emptying and redirecting the categories. From everything I could see on my side, it certainly looked unilateral to me. If there was some established precedent I was unfortunately unaware of, I'm sorry to have missed it, but I'd think simple courtesy would merit giving me some sort of explanation. This all IMO is rather tangential - the issue here is if it is ok to categorize postcards by where they were published. I think so, and can give my reasons at more detail - and I look forward to seeing and discussing any counteragument. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: I've given a couple of counter arguments already in multiple places. You've just ignored them. How about responding to the points I've already made instead of going off on side tangents? This is pretty simple and I'll summarize it for you to make it that much easier
1. There's no way to know the exact location of publication with most postcards because they were either published anonymously or "published" by multiple entities who are all located in different locations.
2. There's already a way to categorize and keep track of where postcards are published by way of the main category for the publisher, which is usually put in a location based category for were they are headquartered. So this is just redundant.
3. We already have "postcards published by" categories, which again, makes this redundant since it serves the same purpose.
4. There's only 2 of these categories to begin with and there's a thing called the Universality Principle. Meaning you can't start categorizing things your own way that's different from the established, agreed on way of doing it no matter how right you think you are for doing so. If you think your correct, it's on you to discuss changing the current system. The fact is that this has already been discussed multiple times. The categories are ambiguous, go against the guidelines, and just duplicate the exiting system. It's not my responsibility to let you know about, or otherwise advocate for, maintaining the exiting status quo. It's on you to give a legitimate reason for for changing it.
Now what's your response to those points? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
  • (unindent) requested responses:
  • 1) Sure, there's sometimes media where we don't know where they were published, but do have enough info for us to determine they are free licensed. This is an issue in no way limited to postcards, and is not an argument against categorizing images when we do know.
  • 2) Categories by publisher is great! I do not see how grouping the publishers by country, state, or city of location in any way upsets that or is inherently redundant. Also such location categories might be useful when location of publication is known but not publisher (I have seen old postcards with only notice "Printed in Germany", or "Made in U.S.A." etc), or when we only have 1 file by some publisher.
  • 3) I think this is already covered in point 2 above.
  • 4) I was not under the impression I was in any way "changing the current system", I was under the impression I was very much continuing and expanding it per multiple other existing examples. See Category:Publications from the United States and various subcategories. I was treating postcards in exactly the same way as other categories of published material. "The categories are ambiguous, go against the guidelines, and just duplicate the exiting system." That's 3 points. I disagree with the first statement as the category name seems to be as clear as "Published in" categories for other media (if you have suggested better names for such categories, suggestions are welcome). For the second, yet again I ask you what "guidelines" and supposed previous discussion you keep mentioning but never linking to. If I was ignorant of some previous relevant discussion, I welcome being better informed. I disagree with the last - it does not duplicate existing system, it compliments it. We have numerous examples of things that are categorized by different criteria - for example, fire hydrants are categorized by color, by location, and manufacturer. (Sometimes intersection categories are created when there is enough media, eg "Yellow fire hydrants in California".) Again, I was following the existing category structure for other media, carefully expanding it by considered examples, not throwing a bomb into the "existing status quo".
  • That's my response to those points you asked. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Infrogmation@Adamant1: Hello you both. Can you give me one or two examples of postcards, were you see a problem. I have read the discussion here, but I would need a specific example of a postcard to familiarize myself more with the matter. Thanks. The best place for a bigger discussion would be at Commons_talk:WikiProject_Postcards. We could get more opinions from other interested parties. --sk (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Stefan Kühn: The only image left having to do with this is File:CanalStreetPostcardIgnatiusEraHolmses.jpg. It was "published" by two different publishers, Koppel Color Cards (located in New Jersey) and Customcraft Distributing Co. located in Metairie, Louisiana. My argument is that it shouldn't be put in "published in" category to begin with because the exact location is ambiguous and/or unknown. If I get Infrogmation's opinion correctly, he thinks that postcards can be published in multiple locations at the same time or he just doesn't care and is confusing the location of the photograph with where it was published.
As a side to that, I'd also agree with Jmabel's comment on my talk page that the place of publication really doesn't mean much for postcards. It's certainly not important enough to justify creating a whole different categorization scheme from what we already have. Especially with the inherent ambiguity to the whole thing. Like with File:CanalStreetPostcardIgnatiusEraHolmses.jpg being published by multiple publishers in different states. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I was unaware there was any problem with File:CanalStreetPostcardIgnatiusEraHolmses.jpg. I copied the information as printed on the back of the card and categorized it accordingly. My copy doesn't say anything about New Jersey nor "Koppel Color Cards". I'll take your word that it was also published by them (where did you get that information, please? That might be worth adding at least to the file talk page). Interesting! Possibly this is similar to situation often seen with sheet music, sometimes originally published by a local or regional publisher, then with success taken up by national publisher - or a small local publisher sells their assets to a larger publisher? With sheet music, the place of publication is usually noted as whatever is printed on the physical music scanned (it can be noted when different editions were printed by different publishers). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: this is the postcard correct? The little K logo in the bottom corner is for Koppel Color Cards. The way it worked with postcards a lot of the times is that the photographer would publish a particular postcard, but they didn't have the resources to print them. So they would have a larger company do it. But that company would also usually publish the postcard out of the area as well. People in outside of Lousiana probably being interested in what Canal Street looks like in this instance. So the postcards are dual published for lack of a better way to put it.
We (meaning Wikiproject Postcards) usually just clump printers, photographers, and publishers together as "publishers" for the sake of brevity since there isn't records of who served what specific role in the publishing process at this point. Or the scenario you mentioned happens. A lot of photographers and publishers bought each other out or even outright copied postcards without the original publishers consent. There's an artist of holiday postcards where like 10 or 15 other people copied his designs and there's no way to tell who out of them printed any particular postcard at this point. So they are all just categorized under his name for lack of a better way to do it. That's one of the main reasons these types of "published in" categories don't work for postcards when they might be fine for other types of media. Having these types of protracted explainer conversations every time someone wants to categorize a postcard clearly wouldn't be a good way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Interesting! Yes, I copied what publisher info was on the back of my copy of the card when I scanned it. Looking at other copies online, I see various versions on the back of the card, for example with credit to Customcraft and no "K" symbol, and with credit to Customcraft but also with the "K" symbol. Curious. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Your link #1 to this image shows on the address page the "K" logo. Under the words "little" and "also" in the bottom left corner. Look again. --sk (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, yes I didn't notice that! So would this indicate that Customcraft had some sort of arrangement for Koppel Color Cards to print their postcards? Or would Koppel have been more of a national distributor for the local company? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Probably both the printer and national distributor. Although I think they "published" their own postcards to. Most big postcard printers did. But its a distinction without a purpose on our end since like I've said, everyone involved in the postcard industry is considered a "publisher" for brevitys sake and due to the lack of reliable information about it. Otherwise things would get to complicated and it would quickly turn into a game of fixing errors instead of organzing images, kind of like happened here. Personally, I'd probably quit working in the area if we ever started categorizing postcards by printer, distributor, Location of publication, or anything else outside the current system. As it is just with categories for "publishers" most of my time is spent fixing other people's mistakes and documenting things properly. So I'm probably not going to bother wasting my time on it anymore if we start categorizing images beyond "publishers." If it aint broke don't fix it as the saying goes. It's super interesting to research and discuss though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
BTW, I've probably browsed at least a couple of thousand websites and databases for postcards at this point. I also own multiple books about postcards. Essentially none of them make the distinction between a the printers, distributors and publishers. Most of the time they don't even distinguish between a publisher and a photographer unless it's specifically a site or book having to do with photographer. Essentially everyone just calls companies and people involved in the postcard industry "publishers" though. So for all intents and purposes it really is a distinction without a purpose even if it's interesting to contemplate. We certainly can't, and shouldn't, make the distinction on our end if essentially know one else does. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)


  •  Comment I mostly fixed this by creating categories for postcard publishers and postcard publishing companies in Louisiana and New Orleans. We don't 5 different category systems for what's essentially the same thing though. We already have "postcard publishers in", "postcards of", Etc. Etc. There isn't a postcard publishing company in New Orleans that doesn't publish postcards there. So it's totally redundant and tautological to have a category for "postcards published in New Orleans" when there's already ones for postcard publishing companies and postcard publishers based in New Orleans. I also put the categories in the "published in" categories as well. So that should be a non-issue. @Infrogmation: It would be cool if you retracted this since I took the time to deal with it when I didn't have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
    @Adamant1: Thanks for your time to deal with this. @Infrogmation: Hope you like it. You are welcome at Commons:WikiProject_Postcards. Best greetings from Dresden, Germany --sk (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Media (communication)

It's not really clear what the difference between this category and Category:Publications. Per the definition of this one communication media is "storage and delivery agent of information or data." Whereas the definition for Category:Publications is "content made available to the general public." So they have extremely similar (and I'd argue similarly ambiguous) definitions. Personally, I would have thought Category:Publications would have been confined to print text "publications" like books and newspapers but a lot of categories for those are also in subcats of this one and visa versa. Category:Publications also contains subcats for photographs, which aren't traditionally known as "publications." So it just seems to be about anything "published" regardless of the medium. Leading to two potential solutions to the problem here:

1. Better define both categories and up-merge or otherwise remove a lot of the subcats in alignment with the clearer definitions.
2. Up-merge and axe one of the categories. My personal preference would be to just up-merge Category:Publications into this category since I think it's the more ambiguous and messy of the two. Otherwise maybe both could be up-merged to something else since there's plenty of other categories that overlap with these ones. Category:Literature, Category:Documents, Category:Works Etc. Etc.

Adamant1 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Katayamahiko-jina

Rename to Category:Katayamahiko Shrine for obvious error Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Rename to Category:Katayamahiko-jinja to be consistent with other categories in the parent category. Deltaspace42 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:3-632656Z

rename to Über ein Kalb, welches eine Kolbe, einer Fontange gleich, auff dem Kopfe gehabt. Rathfelder (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Tour for tourists by sea and land a Venezia

This seems to be a set of images from someone's personal tour of Venice. I don't think that's a valid category to have in general. I suppose it would be okay as a user category (although maybe better as a user gallery), but the creator hasn't been active here in almost 2 years. Therefore I propose deleting.

FYI, four of the files have no other category on them. The others all seem to have sufficient categories to just remove this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support. I've tagged one of the otherwise uncategorized photos as Category:Unidentified locations in Venice and nominated the other three for deletion. The other photos are probably adequately categorized; we don't need to categorize tourist photos by tour. Omphalographer (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Those three otherwise uncategorized images have been deleted, so this category is no longer load-bearing. Omphalographer (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Kashima Shrine Yokosuka

Immanuelle claims this Shinto shrine's name is "Kashima Shrine Yokosuka". But I'm afraid Immanuelle's claim is false. With reference to "プロジェクト:神道" of jawp, the category should be named "Category:Kashima Jinja (Yokosuka)".

The word order of the Shinto shrine's name is extremely strange. Kanagawa Jinjacho registered this Shinto shrine as 鹿島神社 (かしまじんじゃ, Kashima Jinja)... not 鹿島神社横須賀 (かしまじんじゃよこすか, Kashima Jinja Yokosuka). The Corporate Number Publication Site by the National Tax Agency of Japan registered this Shinto shrine as 鹿島神社 (かしまじんじゃ, Kashima Jinja)... not 鹿島神社横須賀 (かしまじんじゃよこすか, Kashima Jinja Yokosuka). It is not often seen the Shinto shrine's name with the same word order as 首都大学東京 (しゅとだいがくとうきょう, Shuto Daigaku Tōkyō, Tokyo Metropolitan University).

Would you show the source that "this Shinto shrine's official English name is Kashima Shrine Yokosuka". --国民の文化の振興も第一 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Lusatia by district

This discussion is about the following two categories:

These category names imply that they are metacats, but they are not metacats. I propose one of the following actions:

  1. Rename the categories to "Districts in Lusatia" and "Municipalities in Lusatia"
  2. Delete the categories; I'm not sure how useful it is to categorize districts or municipalities by a region that doesn't administer them.

I have a slight preference for option 2, but I'd be okay with either. Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It is useful to categorize the districts and municipalities, so there's a chance to get a broader view when using category based tools on a region, which is otherwise not possible. -- regards, 32X (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Wild guess: Not the names suggest metacats here, but the metacat template you had added. Remove it, problem solved. -- regards, 32X (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
No, the names are also at issue because they can cause confusion. Yes, it was a mistake when I added the metacat template, but I fixed it later. The suggested new names would be in line with the descendants of Category:Districts by country and Category:Municipalities by country. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Memorials of expulsion of Germans in Bavaria

Category:Memorials of expulsion of Germans in Bavaria and Category:Monuments and memorials to Heimatvertriebene in Bavaria seem to be basically the same. (Or how could users decide where to place an image? What would be the criteria?) – Do we need duplicate categories? Martinus KE (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monuments and memorials in Bavaria by commemoration

Category:Monuments and memorials in Bavaria by commemoration and Category:Monuments and memorials in Bavaria by subject seem to be pretty much the same, or at least very similar. If there is a difference, what would be the criteria to distinguish where a file should be placed? – Or, if they really are about the same kind of content, do we need duplicate categories? Would they better be merged? Martinus KE (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:SVG historic regulatory road signs of East Germany

deletion SilverJapan2006 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Golden Arches

Category should be merged into Category:McDonald's logos as there is no clear distinction between the two categories. Astros4477 (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. McDonald's has used logos other than the Golden Arches. I've moved a few files from the main category into this one. Omphalographer (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Blantyre

Move request discussion. This category must be reverted back to Category:Blantyre, Malawi. Special:PrefixIndex shows there are two other populated places with the same name: the Australian village of Category:Blantyre, Queensland and the British civil parish of Category:Blantyre, South Lanarkshire. Reverting Rhadamante's category page move action. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:First on the Moon (book)

The book and the film dont seem to be connected. Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I've unlinked the Wikidata item First on the Moon (Q1967705)) from this category and removed a parent category which described the book as a film. I'm still concerned that the title and categories may be inaccurate; the Russian title of the work seems to be "На Луне" ("On the Moon" - not "First"), and it was published in a magazine, not as a book. Omphalographer (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Media control symbols

merge with category:media player icons, or make one child of the other, or something else? Arlo James Barnes 05:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, good idea! But how? I will try sonething. --Elmepi (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
We should probably distinguish between the symbols themselves, like File:Noto Emoji v2.034 23ef.svg, and images where those symbols appear, like File:Pictograms on Sony Betamax Portable.jpg. But that's a separate task; for the time being I'd  Support merging Category:Media player icons to here. (I prefer the name "media control symbols", as "media player icons" is easily confused for "icons of media player software", like the VLC traffic cone icon.) Omphalographer (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your ideas and merged the categories. What do you think? --Elmepi (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Nice job! Arlo James Barnes 05:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)