ill defined and not useful Rathfelder (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete. This is incredibly arbitrary. A bunch of these images are illustrations of "Indian lore" and other indigenous practices, or drawings of animals - there's nothing specifically "19th-century" about what those images depict, and the drawings themselves are often actually from the early 20th century. Omphalographer (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Rathfelder. Blythwood (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete only 225 files need a new home. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder, Omphalographer, Blythwood, and Taylor 49: The category history shows an entry with an edit summary that says "Moved from Category:19th century knowledge. Authors: Wknight94, Wouterhagens". That sounds like this category might be for a book. If that is the case, the category should be renamed accordingly instead of being deleted, and any files that have already been removed should be put back. On the other hand, some of the images, such as File:19th century knowledge hiking and camping sheepskin knapsack sleeping bag rolled up.jpg, specify sources that look like some other publication. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
There is no reason why this category should only include organizations. Plenty of people who have been convicted of terrorism have files on Commons Trade (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
The embassies of the United States are far more known for the country they are located in, not the name of the city they have their adress Trade (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
While it's rare, the United States has sometimes moved an embassy from one city to another within a country - one recent, notable instance was the move of the embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Naming these categories by city helps distinguish photos of the two sites in cases like this. Omphalographer (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Then let us just use the names "Embassy of the United States in Israel (Tel Aviv)" and "Embassy of the United States in Israel (Jerusalem)". There is no reason to have 100+ categories most cannot properly navigate just because of a few rare cases
Seriously, how many people who know the name Rwanda can tell you what their capital is called without opening Google? Trade (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
"Royal Library of the Netherlands" is the correct English name Trade (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
@Trade: , that might be a literal translation, but the KB uses 'KB, National Library of the Netherlands' in all of its communication, see their English website. Husky(talk to me) 09:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
We never use "Royal Library" in our English communications, that name is deprecated. Our current English name is "KB, national library of the Netherlands". In the near future we will change names again, to become "National library of the Netherlands". Given these name changes, we would need to rename this cat again in the future. It is clear enough now that this cat name is about the Dutch national library, not the Belgium, who has the same name. Furthermore, as I've built significant KPI workflows/tooling that use this cat name, it will be a major pain in the b*tt if this cat would be renamed. Kind regards, Olaf Janssen (KB Wikimedia coordinator) OlafJanssen (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
The 223 files of this category are showing Russian renovation projects "before" and "after" the work has been done. Do you understand, what these files are all about? Should more files be added, e.g. those up to number 23? NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
The Brussels-Capital region is one of the three belgian regions of which the City of Brussels is the capital. These two expressions therefore reflect two distinct realities and can't be merged (I live in Brussels). Tatvam (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I was thinking they were completely overlapping. I didn't realize there were other municipalities in the Capital Region. Now everything makes more sense! Thanks. I would suggest turning Category:Brussels back into a disambiguation page, as I now see it used to be. @JhowieNitnek: Do you have thoughts on this, since you removed the disambiguation tag last year? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
{ {support} } rename and merge "names of places" -> "toponyms". "German pronunciation of" is pronunciation in German language, irrespective where the place is located. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Support rename and merge "names of places" -> "toponyms" for all listed above. Preferably "toponyms", alternatively "names relating to geography". Apparently "toponym" and "name relating to geography" is very same thing, the latter is just unnecessarily long and complicated, thus I prefer "toponym". Avoid the very vague and ambiguous term "places". The Category:Places is a mess needing much more work. Also I miss Category:German pronunciation of names of states, for example File:De-Bosnien.ogg should be there in, not in Category:German pronunciation of words relating to geography. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
There is no need for this as there is a full category scheme for FDR by year _and_ one for unidentified years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Might this be merged with Category:San Millán? They seem to cover the same person. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
@ManuelKomnenos: The category is currently empty. If you want it redirected, I'd like to see a source for this being a different name for the same person. Otherwise, the category could just be deleted. What do you think?
@MichalisXanthopoulos: You created the category, then blanked it. What do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
@Auntof6: As I recall (the beginning of August feels like a long time ago!), I saw an artwork which @MichalisXanthopoulos had added to, and then removed from, the Aemilian category. A bit of investigation revealed the Millán category, which is subtitled “Aemilian of Cogilla” and contains pictures labeled both Millán and Aemilian. I’m consequently assuming that these are Latin and modern names for the same person, but can’t guarantee that such is the case (or pronounce on which name should take precedence). ManuelKomnenos (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
It was my conclusion that Saint Aemilian was the same as Saint Millán. I made the category not knowing that Saint Millán already had one and I emptied it so that there would be no confusion. You could redirect it to Saint Millán if you like. I do not know how to do that and that is why I didn't do it myself. MichalisXanthopoulos (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
The Czech Republic did not exist from 1806 to 1918. These should be in the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary if we are categorising by country. Rathfelder (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Counterpoint: to my knowledge, "the Czech Republic" was actually "Czechoslovakia" from 1918-1992 and also never existed before 1806 either. However, "Czechia" or "Bohemia"+"Moravia" DID exist, ever since books began to be published. It makes sense for me to rename the whole category into "Books from Czechia by year". For the respective years, these would be subcategories for the respective Austrian empires, or of Czechoslovakia.
Another point: we're talking about books that will eventually be subcategorized into "Books from Prague/Brno/Plzen/etc by year" (analogous to Category:Books from Leipzig by year, see also London for a fully fleshed out example). That is the reason why I would not support to place these books directly under "published in Austria". The same is the case with "Books from Hungary" in that time. --Enyavar (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
That would certainly be an improvement. Books from Austria and from Hungary should also be subcategories of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary in these years. We do have Category:Books from the Kingdom of BohemiaRathfelder (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
there are subcategories like Books of Finland. Is this supposed to be different from the much better populated categories in Category:Books by country of origin? Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
It may make sense to have categories "Books from $COUNTRY" and "Books about $COUNTRY". "Books of $COUNTRY" seems ambiguous. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I am emptying it. It isnt used much, and clearly most people dont know what it means. Rathfelder (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
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 16:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah... No. THIS is not how CfDs should be held. I have repeatedly argued in the past about other large category trees, ("Georgia" --> "Georgia (country)", and "Historical images" --> void) that huge changes in the category tree should at some point of the discussion be linked in the Village Pump, to find a general consensus.
The process: Proposal by Sbb in January. First opinion by omphalographer in January. Closure by Sbb in February, exactly one month after proposal. That is NOT seeking a consensus by Sbb. I would not speak out against this abridged process for a niche category structure that can be easily reversed. But, this is now affecting all plant categories. With the aforementioned CfDs against "Georgia" and "Historical images", we had at least a few more voices (still not enough in my opinion) but this was a conspitorial and intransparent farce. Nothing bad would have come out of having this CfD open for a year or two; or maybe advertise for it somewhere central, so that there is broader participation.
The first argument for the move from "Flora" (a biological term coming from Latin, the preferred language in biology categories according to consensus on Commons, as far as I am aware) to "Plants (the colloquial term in English) were entirely unconvincing for me: "this is logical because of the 'Animals' category tree, which is in English and not Latin." Hello? Instead, you could have also have argued against the category tree of the "Animals", and clamored for its re-direction back into "Fauna" (or "Animalia")
The second argument: "The categories are a mess" is a non-starter, since renaming just creates even more of a mess at least in the short term. "We will sort this out eventually..." - oh yeah? It took half a year before you finally got to the parts of the category tree where I noticed these changes. This whole affait is just messy. "Sorting this out" will now take even longer.
Also this category is ambiguous though the living thing may well be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
We use binomial nomenclature for species categories because the common English names for plants and animals are often ambiguous, sometimes extremely so (e.g. "grass", "dolphin", "vulture"), and can be difficult to translate precisely to other languages. There is no such ambiguity which needs to be resolved here - English terms like "plant" or "animal" are perfectly acceptable. Moreover, the biological kingdoms are called Plantae and Animalia; "flora" and "fauna" refer to the set of species which are present in a particular biome, not to all plants and animals which exist. Omphalographer (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Support 'Flora' is the correct term. It's almost always plants, yes, but this would be the common term on horticultural, and not more than a few common, literature. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Changing it to flora per Omphalographer. "Flora" is to ambiguous. As it usually, but not always, refers to ground level plants and/or ones of a particular region, habitat, or geological period. As well other things depending on the context, like bacteria and gut flora. Per Commons:Categories "we should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category....The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous."
There's also the whole thing that category names should be based on the the most common term for things when possible to. Know one outside of academia looks for images of plants on the internet using the word "flora." Whereas, I'd argue they would search for the name of a specific plant species because it's relevant to things like gardening where people usually want to "plant" (not flora lmao) a specific type of rose or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
BTW, just looking at the numbers on here, there's 679471 results for "plant" and 584309. A good percentage of the results for the later seem to come from the same couple of sources to. And as side to that, it makes me wonder what the plural for flora would be since categories are suppose in plural form and there's obviously multiple types of flora. Floras? Or is flora actually plural? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Commenten:Flora is not really ambiguous. skin/gut flora need the prefix, if that prefix is not mentioned, "my flora" is more likely to mean my backyard garden rather than my entrails. The few mentions of Flora (dea) have to get that bracket-suffix. On the other side, factory-plants and spy-plants do also exist, so "plants" is also a bit ambiguous. Plantae (in Latin) is practically a duplicate of "Plants". Yet "Plants" is currently the parent category for not just "Plantae" (the biological species tree) and for all individual plants, but also as the collection of all plant life... i.e. "Flora" as the collective noun. ("Floras" is a plural form, but it would be used in "the floras of these two regions are different". Any single location has one flora, even if that means 300 species.)
I would agree that most categories currently under "Plants" should remain as they are, and not get renamed: "Mutations in plants", "Evolution of plants", "Plant collections" should not be artificially renamed... there is no "Potted flora", after all. We should mostly re-evaluate those categories that were moved (like "Flora"--> "Plants") or were intended to move (like "Flora by location).
At least all location-based categories should remain as "Flora", like "Flora of New Caledonia", since they refer to all plant life of a given region. The category tree requiring "flora" also includes "Flora distribution maps" (and arguably should also have consequences in reintroducing "Fauna distribution maps", but I think that should be considered in a different CfD). --Enyavar (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar: I had thought about suggesting going with "flora" for top level, more general categories but still using "plants" with more specific ones like Category:Potted plants. It seems like doing that would introduce it's own problems though and I'm not really sure how it would work anyway. But I'd be open to that if there's a reasonable way to do it that won't just lead to overlap or people renaming the categories for plants to "flora" later because that's how the parent cats are. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Wouldn't using "Plants" as the parent cat of "Potted plants" solve that issue?
I'm personally in favor of keeping "Plants" at the top level, and would prefer to see the location categories eventually renamed as well, seeing as these categories include all plant and plant-related media, including things that aren't flora. And doing so would create a category structure that is entirely consistent without sacrificing accuracy or accessibility. --ReneeWrites (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites: The way I was imaging it is something like a top level "flora" category. Then "Flora (plants)" or the reverse ---> Plants for media of plants that don't directly relate to plant flora because there's still things like Flora distribution maps that would need to be categorized. Or conversally we could just go with "plants" for everything and then have one "flora" category just for the maps. I don't know. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I see what you mean, but I don't think "Flora distribution maps" requires a separate "Flora" parent. The parent category doesn't necessarily need to use the same wording, just cover the subject matter. Since the maps are about plant life, they'd still fit naturally under "Plants" (or a subcategory covering media about plants). That would keep things consistent while still leaving room for the more specific categories you mentioned. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I just noticed that the previous CfD:Flora called for the movement of all "flora" categories to "plant", and I intended to halt and properly discuss that renaming process before it gets fully applied. There are still some holdouts currently, with the "flora by location" and the "flora maps" being the important main parts that still mostly use "flora", as far as I am aware. I would argue that these two parts should not be renamed. Seeing now that many "plant" categories which are under the current "plant" main category now, have apparently not been moved previously, I would also want to ask which categories were actually moved/renamed so far, due to the previous CfD? --Enyavar (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar: I had started with the categories that seemed most in need of straightening out, which were the "Plants by month" (created in 2014, was not renamed) and "Plants by year" (created in 2023, was renamed) categories. Both of these intersect at various points, and both of these contain a mix of subcategories that use flora/plants seemingly interchangeably. For instance Category:Plants by year by month (not renamed) contains Category:Plants in January by year (not renamed), which contains subcategories such as Category:Flora in January 2005.
This was true before the CfD. When Omphalographer mentioned in the previous CfD that these categories were a mess, he was right, but this mess was structural rather than the result of a temporary clean-up action. I would like to continue to straighten these out now that there is a consensus for which term to use. Doing this for the month/year categories won't take months but days, maybe a week. I could probably get either the month or year subcats done before the end of the weekend. Hopefully this will ease your mind somewhat as well on the volume of work we're looking at and how much time it would take. Does that sound good to you? --ReneeWrites (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar: Can I proceed with moving these subcats? ReneeWrites (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm counting four or maybe five voices arguing for "no change, proceed moving". I'm counting two voices arguing for "Flora" categories, but I think the arguments why the main category should now remain "plants" and not be moved back to "flora", are quite reasonable, given that I was not aware of all previous conventions. And as long as we are keeping redirects, people would still be able to find each topic. So I would consent. --Enyavar (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Oppose changing "Plants" back to "Flora". On Commons, these categories are used in a broader way than the definition argued here suggests. "Flora of..." was treated as the parent category of all plants in a particular location, not just natural wildlife. But there was no "Plants of..." category to put files of cultivated plants into, because these categories all redirected back to "Flora of...".
"Plants" is more inclusive, describes its contents more accurately, and to the layperson, it's the more recognizable term. With flora having a more narrow/specific meaning, it introduced problems with "Flora of [country/location]" being treated as the parent category of all plant life. Using the term "plants" for the parent fixes this problem, without introducing new problems in the process, other than that the remaining categories need to be renamed. --ReneeWrites (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I'd add that the "Flora of [place]" categories are not a good fit for Commons, as they attempt to categorize abstract entities (plant species), not specific media. Lists of what species are native to what locations should be maintained in other projects. Omphalographer (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
This category appears to be nothing but the fact that in English the word "northwest" appears in the names of things. Doesn't seem to me like valid or useful categorization. Jmabel! talk 00:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Are you saying you think this should be a text cat (i.e., one using the {{Text cat}} template)? Arlo James Barnes 03:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Category:Northwest (text) would be an acceptable category, but I presume it wouldn't include categories whose category names happen to include "Northwest". - Jmabel! talk 03:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep all 4 intercardinal cats. But move out all photos of type "view from northwest". Taylor 49 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: but what does the category mean? Are you saying the current subcats belong here? - Jmabel! talk 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Indeed I do, same for all 4 intercardinal cats and all 4 cardinal cats such as Category:North. Stuff having the word "northwest" in its name belongs in there, maybe also "Maps facing Northwest" if this is done consistently for all compass directions. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
That would seem to me to be a bias toward English language that is normally only within scope for "text" cats. What is the use case where an actual user would find this category useful? - Jmabel! talk 17:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Nothing prevents contributors to use the cat for other languages, and this has apparently already been done for east: Category:Est (text). No bias toward English language. Anyway, I already removed the miscategorized images. Do you propose deletion of Category:Northwest only, or deletion of all 4 cardinal plus 4 intercardinal cats? Another advantage with them is that they can be connected to WikiData items. Category:Est (text) does NOT have a WikiData item, and if you delete Category:East then Category:Est (text) will be homeless. Actually much more stuff could be added via subcats into those 4 cardinal plus 4 intercardinal cats, making them more useful than they are now or were some days ago. I really do not understand what the point with this nomination for discussion is. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I will stop after this comment, but I continue to believe that this category, even now, is a near-random hodgepodge of unrelated categories that happen to have "Northwest" in their names. Views to or from the northwest have no meaningful relation to China Northwest Airlines; neither has any relation to a road named Northwest Parkway.
I haven't looked at the other categories you mentioned, and don't intend to, but of course if they are analogous then the same logic would apply. I ended up here because it was added to Category:Northwest Film Forum, a film society and cinema in Seattle. - Jmabel! talk 17:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete There is no relationshipbetween the entities categorized other than having a partial common name. Such a random list does not assist navigation and is not sufficiently defining a merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Wrong name? In my research in the media, this church is always referred to as ‘Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche Hayna’ (Holy Cross Church Hayna). The name ‘St. Nikolaus’ is not used anywhere. I have taken several photos of the church and its interior and would like to be able to identify and classify them correctly. I would like to suggest the renaming of the category to Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche (Hayna). Syntaxys (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
According to an enquiry made to the parish of St. Laurentius in Herxheim, the church was rebuilt in 1820 and has since been called ‘Heilig Kreuz’ (Holy Cross). The original church was dedicated to ‘St. Nikolaus‘ (St. Nicholas). With this in mind, I request that the category be renamed. Syntaxys (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I know that music is considered part of the liberal arts, but it seems weird to have this category as a subcat of Category:Works of art by medium. Since "art" and "music" are traditionally considered separate mediums and there usually isn't that much, if any, crossover. Like galleries versus concert halls, art supply stores versus music stores, Etc. Etc.
At the end of the day, it's pretty ambiguous to categorize images like this one as "works of art" just because music is part of the liberal arts. So I think "arts" and "music" should be separate categories systems to avoid any overlap. At least outside of them both being in Category:Seven liberal arts but it makes zero sense to categorize, or subcategorize musicians, people listening to music, Music libraries, concert halls, music stores, Etc. Etc. as "works of art."
Or maybe those things should be in a separate category system and this category should confined purely to actual music. That would probably be to complicated, if not impossible though. Even if I'd argue music is actually a work of art compared to other things I've mentioned. But I am open to it as an alternative if someone can figure out how it would work. Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep as-is: music is a subclass of art. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
@Sbb1413: and @Taylor 49: the problem is that it then leads to images of band members being subcategorized under "works of art" which both of you should agree is wrong. So cool that you don't think Category:music shouldn't be separated from "works of art" (even though it would still be categorized as one of the Category:Seven liberal arts). Then what's the solution to not have files that are related to music but clearly don't have anything to do with an "aesthetic item or artistic creation" (like images of bands members) in the category or ones related to it and why isn't it good enough for the category to just be subcategorized as one of the seven liberal arts instead of as a "work of art"? Since the category is clearly about the broader concept of music and/or the music industry, not individual musical creations or whatever. Great music is art. That doesn't keep images of things that aren't "art works" from being dumped in this or subcats of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: This seems like an area that might be in your wheelhouse or relates to stuff your work on. Any chance you can give your opinion about it? TLDR: Things like images of bands aren't "works of art" even though this is a child of Category:Works of art by medium. So the question is how to deal with that since it still seems appropriate to put band members in the category regardless since they do technically relate to "music" (which I agree with the other participates is art. Just not that everything tangentially associated with music is. Ergo the problem here). --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Tricky. Individual painters aren't works of art, either. In most languages, the cognate for "art" includes music much more emphatically than it does in English, and a lot of our users would bring different connotations there than a native English speaker. So some relation to "art" is almost certainly in order, because lots of people would look for it there. (Categories are more about people finding stuff than about ontology.) Also, music is not one of the "liberal arts", it's one of the "fine arts", though music theory might arguably be a liberal art, and music history a social science discipline.
I agree with you. I did not sort this issue before like this, and that's why the CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 01:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll wait to see what Taylor 49's opinion is about it, assuming they have one, but that sounds reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment Something that equates to 'Works of music' should be the subcat of 'Works of art by medium', containing things like songs and music albums categories. I guess the problem is finding such a subcategory of the Music category. One could move the Works of art by medium category to Category:Audio files of music. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Publications should already be categorized by their publication, e.g. a specific issue of a newspaper should be categorized with other issues of that same newspaper. Removing other categories, like ones for what issue number that newspaper was, does not "fill up" other categories. Omphalographer (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
and most of them without WikiData item. Suggesting merging into ONE or at least fewer than 5. Anyone interested in keeping all please elaborate on scope, and move around files as necessary. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I didn't check how the initially listed cats are currently related; obviously we should lose one of the two that differ only by capitalization. Also, Category:Project diagrams contains activity diagrams in other notations than UML, so Category:Activity diagrams makes sense as well. - Jmabel! talk 01:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Yours, -- please, ping me -- En rouge (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Can we start by merging the "SVG" categories into their non-SVG counterparts? All of these categories are small enough that there's no conceivable benefit to splitting out vector images. Omphalographer (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
If that is done, then Category:SVG diagrams should also be added to each of those files. - Jmabel! talk 03:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
i agree with you @Omphalographer that this is the only "right" one according to the name and the languages... but there are still a lot of categories that should be just a redirect to this one and wikidata elements that should be merged or fixed aswell GioviPenGP msg 17:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Does this need to be a separate category from Category:Mazda MX-5 (NA)? I feel all the files could be merged and just have it redirect to Category:Mazda MX-5 (since they still technically call it the Miata in the US) Somegreenguy (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar: The purpose of this category is not to show maps at specific years, but maps which show areas over periods of time, grouped by years. BorysMapping (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Now that you described what you understand under "chronological", I begin to understand how one can define it. In my cartography classes, maps showing movement over time with arrows were termed "dynamic maps", as opposed to static ones (not that I bothered to use or establish this classification here on Commons before). I am aware that my "dynamic" maps are not quite the same as your "chronological" ones. According to your explanation, File:Comtats catalans s. VIII-XII-es.svg (three static stages) and File:Dauria and Amur region 1652-58 cz.svg (dynamic over several years) would both be "chronological", but File:Conquistas de Felipe Augusto ca.svg would be two static maps that are not chronological? Hmmm. What about File:Franco-Prussian-War Phase 1 toSedan.svg, it shows just one specific year, but it is highly dynamic in showing the area over the period of a single month. I have a feeling you'd also group it as "chronological", but just to be sure.
Another thing, I find it quite puzzling that you say that all chronological maps are at the same time "Anachronous maps"? I am aware of Anachronistic maps, but those are frankly the opposite of chronological, just showing everything at once. --Enyavar (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar: To be honest, I kinda made this classification on spot, so I'm open to changing it, but I think it is useful category nonethless. As I imagined it "chronological" map, is one that clearly shows progression of some area through years (like File:CountrieswithMcDonaldsmoreaccuratemap.svg), while "anachronous" map is one which at the same time as one area all places that ever been under certain category (like File:The British Empire at some point map.png). That being said I don't have strong opinions on edge cases or how exactly it should be defined. BorysMapping (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
That is why I opened this CfD. Here on Commons, we are operating in many different languages and also on very different levels of understanding. If this is not even established terminology, how do you expect others to understand, accept and utilize these additional categories for meaningful purposes? For example, I disagree that chronological maps are anachronous. And what does your impromptu classification do with edge cases - would you just make up more classifications on the spot? Are animated maps chronological? Is this one about 1600 BCE chronological or not?
The way I see it, maps that show history (in any way) can be handled quite well with the existing "history maps" framework already. Our main problem is that history maps are way too often not categorized properly at all. In my opinion, it is vastly more important to move each "history map" towards the fitting century and to the correct country/region/location. Please see my examples above, they are all categorized by the region and century shown.
Next - while I have now seen that you don't just restrict yourself to history maps, I can at least tell you that we host many tenthousands of history maps that might qualify for your chrono-scheme. Just to point one little thing out: most of our ~200 Old maps of the Battle of Gettysburg are "chronological". Check them out, many of them show positions for each day of the battle. (And again, most maps about the Civil War are not yet properly categorized...)
You already recognized how big this task is, when you subdivided your new categories into regions. In the end you will probably create a whole parallel category tree to the existing history map tree.
Since you have just started this huge quest, may I a change towards a wikidata-driven approach? You could ask some experienced WD-users to define a "map showing multiple points in time" property, with "points in time" as possible attributes. That would allow you to tag a map like this one with "map showing multiple points in time: 806, 826, 827, 841, 870, 909" as a data property; and a map like this one with "map showing multiple points in time: 1863-07-01, 1863-07-03". This idea would allow some sort of automated computing with the maps, too. What do you think? --Enyavar (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
@Enyavar: Well, if a map showed each year from 1900 to 2000 then putting structured data with each year might be an overkill, perhaps just marking start and end point would be better? BorysMapping (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Definitely. In your MacDonalds example, ideally the points in time should get marked as "1940-1969, 1970-1974, ..."
Now, I am not fully sure how this can be set up. I tested a bit with that very file, an the existing SD properties are not fully what I expected. I searched for "timespan", but that doesn't exist. Instead, I tried to input "duration":"1940-1969"/"years" (for the first timespan, showing that MacDonalds was active in Kanada+US during these years) and I tried out the property "point in time":"2000"/"century" (meaning the "20th century"), which allows you to choose input by century, decade, year...
@Mosbatho: Hi Mosbatho, I found your name on this very exclusive list here: Commons:Structured data/Userbox, marking you as what I understand is a Structured Data Ambassador to Commons.
Do you think you could provide input on how to proceed with this idea? In this first test I didn't find SD flexible enough to do exactly what I tried to achieve. --Enyavar (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
-) didn't know that this list is this very exclusive. I did an opt out. Regards, Msb (talk) 21
10 images in this category are imported from flickr and are sourced from Dept. of Agriculture (being copyright free seems the only reason for use here). Eight of them show recognizable but unnamed people (perosnality rights?) None of the images provide information as what is shown. Thus they all should be deleted for lack of SCOPE, the category may be kept for future images. Qualitätssicherung (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
this cat is now mixing cats of chemical compounds and cats of chemical diagrams together. for example, Category:Sodium chloride NaCl is a specific compound existing in the real world. Category:Chemical formulas are manmade diagrams that represent something. now they're mixed up as "structures".
but i dont have no solution to how to untangle this mess. RZuo (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@RZuo: Well I certainly don't have an overall solution either, but there are a few distinct observations:
Chemical substances is the seemingly correct parent of this category. Any files showing a substance without enough granularity to reveal its chemical structure should be pushed up to that level.
There is more to do and probably some expert assessment of the contents to implement fully, but this is a start. Josh (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoyZuo: Any feedback? --Leyo 14:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
I think there is an overall idea of "structure" to chemistry. My (limited) understanding is that a chemical structure can refer to the spatial arrangement of atoms within a molecule and the chemical bonds that hold them together, and cam describe how the atoms are connected and oriented in three-dimensional space. In other words, its an overarching category. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Not done: no valid reason for deletion of this category. --ChemSim (Talk) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
end of transclusion
as pointed out in the previous unresolved (and imprudently closed) cfd, certain subcats dont seem to belong here. Chemical structure: "chemical structure of a molecule is a spatial arrangement of its atoms and their chemical bonds..." for example, "(in)organic compounds" are "chemical substances", not about a certain spatial arrangement. RoyZuo (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
"There is more to do and probably some expert assessment of the contents to implement fully... 5 February 2023"
has that been done to resolve the problems at hand? RoyZuo (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
This category with 97 by-year subcategories structure makes it really hard to find and compare old maps of Brest. The exact year should not be that important; the exact location and map frame should be. Even large cities like Paris and London are categorized by decade.
If needed, I can easily provide more arguments why categorization by year is not a good idea, including false precision, false grouping, cohesion, and more. Enyavar (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Bonjour,
(google trad) the century/decade/year subcategorization is a général model. I don't understand your localization difficulties when you are talking about time markers. You're wrong, Paris has a year-by-year ranking, like many major cities. While some cities don't have enough maps, this isn't the case for Brest, which already has 97 year categories. S. DÉNIEL (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Bonjour aussi, g-traduit aussi par courtoisie pour vous. J'ai lu et corrigé le résultat pour précision, mais je ne peux pas guarantir perfection.
fr La dernière fois que j'ai vérifié, les cartes de Paris étaient classées par décennie et non par année. Veuillez consulter 1910s maps of Paris, il n'y a pas de sous-catégories par année. Contrairement, une carte de Paris de 1910 est classée dans la même catégorie qu'une carte de Paris de 1911. Cependant, les afficher dans la même catégorie facilite la comparaison et la navigation entre les cartes. Il en va de même pour les 1850s maps of London, par exemple. Commons:Categories nous indique que nous souhaitons classer des éléments similaires dans la même catégorie. Des sous-catégories sont créées lorsqu'il est nécessaire de faire une distinction en raison d'un trop grand nombre de fichiers (ou de fichiers avec des propriétés différentes). Veuillez comparer "Brest, 1875" et "Brest, 1876": les deux cartes sont exactement les mêmes. Pourquoi les séparer ?
Des cartes ne sont pas des photos horodatées. Pas même comme des entrées de journal, où l'on peut facilement dater une page entière d'un seul/e jour/semaine/mois. La préparation pour créer une carte prend plusieurs années. Il arrive que des erreurs se produisent et que les cartes montrent des maisons déjà détruits des années avant leur publication. Une carte publiée en janvier illustre probablement la situation de l'année précédente. Ce carte a été publié en 1877, mais repose sur des décisions prises en 1869. Il arrive qu'une ébauche de la même carte soit disponible, mais datée deux ans plus tôt. Une erreur administrative peut entraîner une erreur de datation. Il peut exister différents systèmes de classement pour la datation : fin de l'arpentage, fin de la conception, année d'impression. Tous ces petits problèmes de datation ont un impact bien moindre si l'on regroupe les cartes par décennie. (Cela dit, tous les fichiers encore datés devraient toujours contenir "1844 in Brest" et "1845 in Brest"...)
La catégorie "Cartes de Montréal par année" ressemblaient beaucoup à celle des "Cartes de Brest par année" d'aujourd'hui, avec une centaine de petites catégories contenant seulement 1 à 5 fichiers chacune. 97 catégories "par-année" peuvent suffire pour une ville comptant plus de 5'000 cartes qu'on ne pouvant être gérées autrement. Il n'y a que 323 entrées ici : une moyenne ~4 « cartes » par année. La navigation entre les catégories est donc fastidieuse. Pire encore, la catégorie « Cartes vieux de Brest » inclut des cartes d'autres villes et des dessins de maisons. La catégorie "Cartes de 1838" n'est pas la seule à ne contenir que des plans de bâtiments. Ceux-ci devraient être classés dans la catégorie "plans architecturaux de Brest". Quelques autres cartes sont régionales, Brest étant simplement indiquée par un point : il faudrait les appeler « cartes de Bretagne » ou « cartes du Finistère », et non les utiliser pour gonfler les chiffres dans les « cartes de Brest ». C'est ce que je veux dire par «location» - l'emplacement exact est plus important que la date exacte. Mes plus meilleures salutations, --Enyavar (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
en (same paragraphs) Last I checked, Paris maps are subcategorized by decade, not year. Please look at 1910s maps of Paris, there are no subcategories by year. Instead a map of Paris from 1910 is in the same category as a map of Paris from 1907. But showing them in the same category allows for easier comparison and navigation between the maps. The same with 1850s maps of London, just for example. Commons:Categories tells us that we want to categorize similar things in the same category. Subcategories are to be created when you must make a distinction because there are too many files (or too many files with a different property). Please compare "Brest, 1875" and "Brest, 1876": the two maps are exactly the same. Why split them up?
Maps are not photos with a timestamp. Not even like journal entries, where you can easily date a whole page to one single day, week or month. The preparation to create a map takes several years. Sometimes errors are made and maps may show buildings that were already destroyed years before publication. A map published in January likely shows the situation of the previous year. This plan was published in 1877, but is based on decisions made in 1869. Sometimes there is a draft of the same map, but dated two years earlier. A clerical error can later result in misdating. There may be different filing systems for dating: end of survey, end of design, printing year. All of these little dating problems have a much smaller impact when you instead group maps by decade. (That said, all files that can still be dated, should still get "1844 in Brest", "1845 in Brest".)
The "maps of Montreal by year" category branch looked very much like "maps of Brest by year" today, with a hundred tiny categories only containing 1-5 files, each. 97 by-year categories can be fine for a city with 5000+ maps that cannot be managed otherwise. Instead there are just 323 entries here: an average of just ~4 "maps" for each year. This makes browsing/navigating the categories very tedious. Worse, "Maps of Brest" include maps of other cities and drawings of houses. "1838 maps" is not the only one that exclusively holds building plans. These should get placed in a "old building plans of Brest"-category. A few more maps are regional where Brest is marked only as a dot: Those should be "maps of Bretagne" or "maps of Finistère", and not be used to pad up numbers in "maps of Brest". This is what I mean with "location". Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Unreasonably vague term. Essentially all diagrams show some sort of structure. There are no non-structure diagrams. Delete this cat. All subcats and files can be moved to some more descriptive categories, and most of them are already in at least one other category, thus they can just be removed from "Structure diagrams". Taylor 49 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
This seems like a needlessly obtuse compound category. 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. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." It looks like the Wikidata infobox is for "railcars." So I think that should just be the name instead. While categories like Category:Multiple units can stay put, be upmerged, or something else can be done with them. "multiple units, motor coaches and railcars" is totally incoherent though. Adamant1 (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
The category was made after lengthy discussions what should be where. In German you wold all call them "Triebwagen" but there is not a single translation of this. Motor coaches are the powerful "Triebwagen", light and short vehicles tend to be called railcars. But railcar is not a good term for many "Triebwagen". With multiple units it becomes even more difficult. Railcars that can work in multiple become multiple units. Moder motor coaches can also work in multiple, but not all do. Thus you can't collect all vehicles in multiple units. And then again you find different use of the terms in British and American English. You can go through many languages and you find terms in French "automotrice", in Italian "automotrice", Swedish "motorvagnar" but there isn't a single and clear translation into English. Gürbetaler (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Gürbetaler: There's already separate, individual categories for multiple units, railcars, and motor coaches though. So people are already putting images of them specific categories regardless and this is just a pointless compound of the exiting categories those things. I don't buy that it's needed because of the different meanings of the terms when people are already organizing things that way regardless of this exiting or not. It's just an extra compound, middle category between those ones and Catgory:Trains by type that serves no purpose what-so-ever. There's no reason someone can't put an image of a railcar in the category for railcars if this doesn't exist though. If anything it just makes it less likely they will. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Gürbetaler that it is a single, coherent concept for which English lacks a common term. If someone can come up with a better English-language name, great, but I think the category should be kept. - Jmabel! talk 17:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I don't think we need both the specific categories and this one. It would be good if we could at least figure out what to do with them if this is kept. So should Category:Railcars, Category:Motor coach (rail), and/or Category:Multiple units be upmerged to this category since it seems like according to you and Gürbetaler they aren't coherent commonly used terms or stand on their own without this category for some reason? Personally, --Adamant1 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Whereas I think the current arrangement is fine. Those more specific terms exist in English, and they are clear concepts, but this is a clear, more general concept, for which many languages (but not English) have a word.
In terms of category naming, it is somewhat analogous to Category:Aerial tramways, a clumsy English-language term we resort to because English lacks a cognate for téléphérique/Pendelseilbahn/etc. - Jmabel! talk 18:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel English already has a common term for this object, railcar. The other two are subtypes of the first:
1- a multiple unit is a railcar made up of several non-divisible cars;
2- a motor coach is a railcar designed to operate alone or by pulling a train;
- finally, multiple units (1) should not be confused with MU-capable; both a railcar, a multiple unit, and a motor coach can be MU-capable.
Multiple Units and Motor Coaches should then become subcategories of railcar car. Arflhn (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Your definition is not a consensus. A multiple unit may well be built up by divisible cars. Maybe not in England. But on the continent there is no clear border and we had so many discussions if something is or is not a multiple unit. Any railcars or motor coaches working in multiple can be seeen as multiple unit. We can find many quite fix but not by definition fix push-pull consists who some may call a multiple units and others don't. And problem only comes up when finding an english term. N o such discussion in German, French, Czech, Swedish, etc. Or you can go to the SBB RBe 4/4, clearly a motor coach which pulled long trains when new but ended up in multiple units built up by push-pull consists working in MU. We really need a Triebwagen category but as we stick to English in naming we have to find compromises. Gürbetaler (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
And what will you do with the multiple units on the Berninabahn that pull long trains? This doesn't exist in the English concept. Gürbetaler (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello,
All these concepts are not mutually exclusive.
When I say non-divisible, I mean, in common usage. You can send the train back to the manufacturer to add a car, but in common usage, you can't modulate the composition of these trains, and that's the big difference between a multiple unit and a motor coach. Do you have any examples of modular EMUs in mind? I'm intrigued.
Monday (3 old railway coaches + 1 driving RC)
Tuesday (2 old railway coaches + 1 driving RC)
Wednesday (brand new railway coaches)
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
That doesn't take away the possibility for a multiple unit to be able to haul a train like a motor coach would, as in your photo however motor coach is ?mainly/only? used for single-body railcars, can we use it for MUs?
And in the case of the SBB RBe 4/4, nothing prevents it from starting as a motor coach and ending up as a multiple unit, with no further possibility of modulating the composition. Arflhn (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
The question for including MU and motor coaches in railcars is whether the definition of railcar should include the criterion of having only one car. Wiktionary offers both definitions, but the first does not include this criterion.
If we choose the first definition, then motor coach and MU are subtypes of railcar.
If, conversely, we consider only single-car vehicles as railcars, then we have three different objects that cannot be grouped under a single category, as Adamant1 pointed out in his post. However, motor coach can remain a subcategory of railcar. Arflhn (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Your statement "And in the case of the SBB RBe 4/4, nothing prevents it from starting as a motor coach and ending up as a multiple unit" brings us back to where we started to build this "complicated" category. It isn't helpful, if you have to search the RBe 4/4 once as motor coach, later as an EMU and between as a railcar (when working single to Pontarlier). There must be a parent category besides the locomotives. Gürbetaler (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Since "people" is a top-level subcategory in many country categories, I thought it should not come under Category:Homo sapiens, which is ultimately a subcat of Category:Nature, another top-level subcat in country categories. My idea was to use Category:Homo sapiens for human topics treated like other animals, and Category:People for individual humans and human topics unique from other animals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Sure, that makes good sense. Thanks for the explanation. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
COMMENT: we could probably agree that 'all humans are people' (subject to some VERY finicky/controversial/possibly-intractable? arguements about human gestation) BUT 'not ALL people/persons are human' (viz. in: fiction, law, social concepts (incl. but not limited to animal rights arguements), & potentially (exo-)biology). i have added provisionally added homo sapiens as a subcat of 'people'. Lx 121 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good point I hadn't thought of. Corporate personhood aside, many of the sub-categories of Category:Fictional humanoids might be considered people but not human. So then Category:Homo sapiens becomes specifically about the human body as a sub-category of people, even if it doesn't describe the bodies of all fictional people. -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Originally, Category:Species of Coleoptera was the category to list categories of beetle species. Using either {{Taxonavigation}} (with order Coleoptera) or {{Coleoptera}} for a species category would automatically add that category to Species of Coleoptera. Then in November 2024, user Nil Nandy created Category:Coleoptera by species. Because the module for the taxonavigation template is set up to prioritize "[taxon] by [rank]" over "[ranks] of [taxon]" for categories to fill, this meant that the taxonavigation template started filling up the "by species" category instead of "Species of".
I'm thinking this change should be reverted, as it was unnecessary to create a new category for listing beetle species categories when the one that existed already was perfectly fine (and consistent with other categories to do with Coleoptera taxonavigation). I've tried turning the new category into a simple category redirect, but this doesn't seem to make the module revert to the old one, so I'm thinking this should be deleted instead, if there is no other way around this.
Alternatively, it could be the other way around and the "Species of" Category should be the redirect instead of "by species", if people prefer the latter? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Support. There's no need for two redundant categories. --R'n'B (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Special is arbitrary. Upmerge to Category:Clocks by function because any clock with a function beyond telling time is arguably a special clock. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Category:Chronoscopes seems to refer to early timers or stopwatches, but en:Chronoscopes is entirely about fictional devices that let you look forward or backward in time. I'm not sure how to rename this to avoid confusion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Greetings! I don't have any strong feelings about this, but believe that Chronoscopes should refer to real timepieces, and Chronoscopes (fiction) should refer to... well, you know. Here are some definitions for "chronoscopes" thanks to various online dictionaries etc -- all refer to real devices. 1) "an instrument for the precise measurement of small time intervals (as by means of a falling rod, released pendulum, or an electronic device"... 2) "A highly accurate timekeeping device, an extremely precise chronometer".... 3) "OMEGA Speedmaster Chronoscope is a stainless steel chronograph watch with a blue dial, white".... But I don't have a dog in this fight! cheers and best wishes, Daderot (talk) Daderot (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Daderot: It makes sense to separate fact from fiction, for sure. We do already have Category:Chronometers with the definition "high-precision time piece" which seems to fit all three of those definitions. And we don't have any pictures of fictional ones. Do we need this category at all? -- Themightyquill (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Again I don't have any strong opinions, but personally I'd wait on creating an empty category in hopes that something may show up someday. But - whatever you think best! cheers, Daderot (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see much of a difference between this category and "category:Wedding ceremonies" . I suggest simply combining them. Miikul (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
It indeed became a bit a dump of image through the years. On the other hand, I can also understand why these distinct categories exist nowadays. And in fact, to make it even more difficult, there's also Category:Marriage.
In fact, originally Category:Weddings was just a redirect to Category:Marriage. But after 12 years, in 2019, some decided that "Weddings" should no longer be a redirect, but a child category of "Marriage".
I can also understand why some made "Wedding ceremonies" a child category of "Weddings". Because indeed, a "Wedding ceremony" is specifically the ceremony itself. Looking at "Weddings", that is a bit a broader parent category: it contains child categories with other subjects than merely a "ceremony". Like "Wedding clothes", "Weddings in art", "Wedding invitations", "Wedding transport", "Wedding venues". That is a broader collection of subjects. A means of 'transport' is not a 'ceremony'. A 'venue' is not a ceremony. And categories like "Wedding parties" and "Wedding celebrations" would also cause ambiguity. In some cases they're clearly distinct from the "Wedding ceremony": the "ceremony" may be the religious ceremony (e.g. in a church), or non-religious official part (e.g. in a town hall); while the "Wedding party" is just an (informal) party elsewhere on a venue. For some these are clearly distinct 'events'; maybe for some people, countries, traditions that may all be 1 thing.
And then the category "Marriage" is even broader. Containing subjects like Symbols, like Marriage records, like History, etc.
Note that in 2007, a user tried to give an explicit explanation of the purpose of "Wedding ceremonies": . With the comment "Added description, as many uploaders seem to have missed the point of this category." , the user added the description: "Media describing weddings actually taking place." Maybe that users was trying to explaining exactly a point missed by this merge proposal?? And I must say it makes sense somehow. Seeing that, I tend to agree.
So while I agree that things are a bit ugly at the moment, seeing the above comments, I feel like it actually makes sense to have "Wedding ceremonies" as subcategory of "Wedding". But instead of merging them, I think the better action to take would be to move a lot of those images that were dumped blindly under "Weddings" into a more specific appropriate child category, in many cases "Wedding ceremonies". We can't really "merge" from "Wedding ceremonies" into "Weddings" I think, or we'll only make it worse? --LimoWreck (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Anyone know exactly what the purpose of this category and/or the subcats is? After looking through things it just seems to be a mishmash of random images that don't have anything to do with each other and are already more specific categories. Heck if I can pin down or define what an actual image of "heritage" would be either. So what exactly is the point here and what's suppose to go in the category if not a bunch of images that have no relation to each other (let alone Heritage)? Adamant1 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Rename to Monasteries of the Georgian Orthodox Church by century of establishment to avoid confusion with the Georgian Period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete. This is incredibly arbitrary. A bunch of these images are illustrations of "Indian lore" and other indigenous practices, or drawings of animals - there's nothing specifically "19th-century" about what those images depict, and the drawings themselves are often actually from the early 20th century. Omphalographer (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Support merge to Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator, which could include both organizations and individuals. GCarty (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Terrorist incidents by perpetrator per above. Deltaspace42 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
Husky (talk to me) 09:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment there are several: Category:Burqinis mm. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see any issue with this category redirect, or with the category it redirects to. Omphalographer (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Changing it to flora per Omphalographer. "Flora" is to ambiguous. As it usually, but not always, refers to ground level plants and/or ones of a particular region, habitat, or geological period. As well other things depending on the context, like bacteria and gut flora. Per Commons:Categories "we should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category....The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous."
Not done: no valid reason for deletion of this category. --ChemSim (Talk) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Monday (3 old railway coaches + 1 driving RC)
Tuesday (2 old railway coaches + 1 driving RC)
Wednesday (brand new railway coaches)
Monday
_Lignes_déclarées_d'utilité_publique_;_(les)_Lignes_concédées_à_titre_éventuel_(et_la)_Concession_de_la_Cie_Nord-Sud_-_btv1b530710462.jpg){kind=link}
_Lignes_déclarées_d'intérêt_public,_(les)_Lignes_concédées_à_titre_éventuel_(et_la)_Concession_de_la_Cie_Nord-Sud_-_btv1b53069826q.jpg){kind=link}
,_Environs_de_Brest_-_rédigé_par_M._Beautemps-Beaupré_;_publié_par_ordre_du_Roi,_sous_le_ministère_de...,_M._le_Marquis_de_Clermont-Tonnerre..._-_btv1b53198185z_(56_of_62).jpg){kind=link}
