Wikidata says this is published in Brussels, but one of the parent categories is Category:1880 books from France; I have no idea which is wrong. Also, this appears to be an 1880 edition of the work for which the terribly similarly named Category:Fleurs, Fruits et Feuillages Choisis de l'Ile de Java is an 1863 edition. Might we do better to have the year in each of these category names rather than distinguish by a small spelling difference? And wouldn't it make more sense to have a parent category that covers the work in general, and a child category of that for each edition that merits a category? Jmabel! talk 01:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Well, *ille*, with two L's is just a misspelling, so that can't stay. I agree that a separation by year would be good. I propose harmonizing the names, based on the spelling in the PDFs:
an archbishop must not be Roman Catholic, there are as well anglican archbishops but I don't know if there is one in Brazil. And there are ass well titular archbishops without an archdiocese in Brazil. anro (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
The whole subrtree is messed up. I would propose to not make any experiments and stay true to the subtree. In that case, Roman Catholic archbishops in Brazil by archdiocese is proposed correctly. Imho, Archbishops in Brazil should only be created as a parent category if there is at least one example for a non-Roman Catholic one, which i don't think is the case, but I might be mistaken. Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Venezuela for now. Later, if content for expatriate bishops opering in Venezuela emerge, it can be recreated. This is a necessary first step to tidying up the tree structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Category:Orange cats redirects here but I think it should be a separate cat or this cat be renamed: these are not red but orange. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Might it be useful to leave as a parent category - for example someone might know that a photo is of a US archbishop but not what archdiocese they are in, so they could put the media there until someone more knowledgeable could put it in a more precise subcategory? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Not really. An archbishop isn't dressed differently than a bishop. Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
An archbishop wears the pallium, which a bishop does not. But not opposed to recreating the nominated category as a parent category later. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Should this maybe instead be categorized better so Wikimedians in residence who work on Wikipedia are in that subcat and the rest in the cat above? I think that would be the better solution here. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
What is the point in grouping "unlisted" buildings? Can this not be inferred by a cat not having a relevant listing grade category or does "unlisted" refer to sites that are de-listed, non-designated or have immunity from listing? Tæppa (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The creation of a Wikidata-ID is not limited to buildings with a monument status. Whatever building (or other item) is described by proper articles in more than one language in Wikipedia, receives a Wikidata-ID.
Everybody, who is interested in a high quality of WM Commons, should accomplish categorization and background informations of the building category of any building, he is visiting for whatever reason.
If such a church has no listed-building category, everybody, who tries to accomplish the categorization, has to search Historic England for the list entry, in order to enter the monument ID, and of course also the listing grade.
If the map search of Historic England shows, that this church (or another public building) has no monument status, the community of Wikimedians (including other people interested in British architecture) has to be informed that searching for the list entry is in vain.--Ulamm (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
P. S.: Typically, data sets in opensource projects are incomplete. Therefore, it is necessary to record a research that has found that something is not, in order to distinguish it from "not yet researched".--Ulamm (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
My point was that you won't need to search the Historic England website as it will already have a wikidata item if listed, (wikidata can be searched with WikiShootMe, which is on GeoHack, the linked site when you click on coordinates on any wikimedia page, if anyone was unaware)
There are presently just under 3,000 listed churches in England, Scotland and Wales without a link to Commons (of a total 18,500). Once these are linked to Commons the implication will be that all churches without a relevant heritage designation(P1435) on wikidata aren't listed. Exceptions apply to Category:Locally Listed Buildings (not imported to wikidata and sparse on Commons) and newly listed buildings (which can be picked up with the above Quarry). Tæppa (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it means non-designated though obviously formerly listed or those with immunity would also be unlisted so should also be included. With respect to Anglican parish churches nearly all are listed so being unlisted probably would be defining however many other types of churches especially in larger towns aren't listed and we don't otherwise normally categorize based on what things aren't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
This can also be queried on Wikidata, although you might have to include all buildings/churches that are no longer extant.
finds any extant non-listed church built before 1840 (roughly the start of Victorian era). If the cut off time for such a category is set after that, you risk having categories of all non-listed Victorian buildings (see en:The Victorian Society for evidence that someone sometime might be interested in doing that). If no such cut off time is set and "Unlisted x in y" is not automatically populated, it can effectively read as a wishlist for listed status, which is why we have local heritage lists in the UK. Tæppa (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikidata has the same problem as Commons, just another co-operative open source work. If some feature simply is not mentioned, nobody can see, if it has been forgotten (which occurs very often), or it does not exist.
"There are so many listed buildings" is no serious argument. There are so many doubtful theories basing on incomplete research. To get reliable statements on the geography of architecture as well on the geography of biological species, they should be based on records as complete as possible. Complete records on a kind of buildings require a not on each of these buildings, telling if it is listed or it is not listed.
And as Tæppa has mentioned local lists or the wish lists of the Victorian Society, Commons categories provide the possibility of condensed information, mutual help among all members of the Commons' community.
Tæppa should use his limited time for better things than destroying informations compiled by other users.--Ulamm (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me that this is a subcat of Category:Seaside parks. What about lake beaches? And it seems a bit of a stretch even for things like beach parks on Puget Sound. Jmabel! talk 06:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Beach parks is a common term for these kinds of parks in the US. They are often called beach parks at lakes, as seen here and here. Also, Beach parks nests with the Category:Beaches. I added lakes as well to the cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in terms of category hierarchy that [adding lakes as parent - Jmabel! talk 19:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)] makes even less sense. Categories are not supposed to inherit as unions, they are supposed to inherit as intersections. Very few parks will be both seaside and have a lake. - Jmabel! talk 22:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
A beach park is a type of park that can be located anywhere there is a beach, either ocean, sea, sound or lake. It's a common term, at least in the U.S. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I think all anatomical plates and drawings are "historical". It should be merged up into Category:Anatomical plates and drawings. (If not, it should be renamed "historical" instead of "historic"). -- Deadstar (msg) 16:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
What exactly is an "information map"? All maps (besides maybe Maps in art) necessarily contain information. Yes, I could imagine that maps about information could be a thing, like a map that locates tourist info points in a city or maps about internet communication cables.
But in the case of this category, I'd argue that we need to drop the "Information" prefix. These are just "maps", and this category would be for potentially any unsourced maps. Enyavar (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, all maps contain information. What is meant here is something more narrow. It's for files where sourcing is missing for the data shown on the map and this cat is added via {{Map datasource missing}} which also makes clear this isn't about the map per se but the data. For newer maps, that refers to the missing sourcing for e.g. country data (say how much greenhouse gases countries emitted) that are shown in usually choropleth maps. For older maps, that can however also be the data for where the polities are located for example – so for example a map of the Roman empire at a certain time could get this if there's no sources for that regional coverage.
This isn't for any unsourced maps. Maps where the source is missing is something else. Here, the source can be provided or it's an own work by the user but the data-source is missing.
Open to renaming if it makes things clearer. How would you name it?
Okay, thanks, understood. I still think the name should be "Maps without data source" or maybe "Thematic maps without data source", and an explanation in the short description that this is not about the topographical data source, but the theme data source, just like you explained to me. Maybe "this category holds en:Thematic maps where there is no documented source for the thematic data overlay. If you are able, please provide the exact source for maps in this category." --Enyavar (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
This category covers the same topic as Category:West Sepik Province (Papua New Guinea). The West Sepik category has the Wikidata link, which as you can see in its infobox even uses Sandaun Province. The two categories should be merged, and I nominated this one for CfD as I assume merging the one without the Wikidata link is easier. CMD (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment, not familiar with the subject of this particular category, but for some categories, they don't have to use English names if their non-English name is more commonly used. See Commons:Categories#Category names for more details. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
This category refers specifically to missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The term "Mormon" can apply more broadly to individuals from different branches of Mormonism, not necessarily to the LDS Church. Therefore, I recommend renaming this category to "LDS missionaries". heylenny (talk/edits) 17:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Valid point. The title is definitely misleading. It's on the pejorative (non-neutral) side also. It ought to be renamed. Bobjgalindo (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Should be called Shinto new religious movements. The term neoshinto is not standard and I believe it often explicitly refers to organizations founded from 1950-present Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
So far I hesitated to actually create the DR... is my understanding correct that all files in the category are Copyright violations of the artists? If I am wrong, then I'd like to ask this CfD to be closed. I will then remove the notification in the category. Else, I would nominate all files in the category. --Enyavar (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Usually CfD are for (werid) categories like "cat jumping over blue sofa" and when the they are deleted, the files remain in Commons, but probably are moved to a parent category. This is not the case as it is the only category that makes sense for this monument. For this kind of cases, you nominate the copyright violations and if the category is empty it gets speedy deleted due to C2. Regarding the files, File:Arizona 9-11 Memorial-1.jpg is likely a copyright violation, but File:Bolin plaza 9-11 memorial.JPG is certainly not. Günther Frager (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
That is why this is a CfD, I don't fully understand the loopholes into and out of US copyright cases. To the best of my knowledge, with this grouping of 8 images, all 8 would be a CopyVio of the artists who created the monument, because it is neither FoP nor PD. Yet Günther Frager claims that a macro shot of the monument is certainly not a CopyVio? --Enyavar (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Absolutely unnecessary subcategorization by event; there is no need for such a system when, for many athletes, even categorization by year is not meaningful or appropriate. Sandro Halank (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree. These categories do not serve to make photos easier to find; on the contrary, they make finding them unnecessarily complicated. --Stepro (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Proszę o usunięcie zbędnej kategorii - od początku nazwa była niewłaściwa; pliki przeniesiono do właściwej kategorii. Uppersilesianus (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
needs reorganisation and categorization work: not all labels are information "graphics" and not all labels are "Printed objects" such as many of the subcategories of the Category:Tags subcategory and not all Labels are "Texts" since there's also many with only symbols Prototyperspective (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The purpose of this new heraldic subtree doesn't seem obviously clear. @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Any further arguments? Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Is it because you study coats of arms? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean where is supposed this new tree to utlimately lead, in terms of parallels heraldry tree structures? Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The purpose of this new heraldic subtree doesn't seem obviously clear. @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Any further arguments? Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The purpose of this new heraldic subtree doesn't seem obviously clear. @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Any further arguments? Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The purpose of this new heraldic subtree doesn't seem obviously clear. @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Any further arguments? Kontributor 2K (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
She did not rule the United Kingdom. Should be Great Britain Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment This one is a bit tricky, because by the end of her reign as Queen Consort it was, indeed, the United Kingdom. Same issue for her husband, George III. I can see that "United Kingdom in 1792" is anachronistic, but the alternative would seem to be that to have "Queen Charlotte of Great Britain in 1792" (or maybe "Queen Charlotte of Great Britain and Ireland in 1792"?) and "Queen Charlotte of the United Kingdom in 1812". And wouldn't she be "Charlotte, Princess of Wales in 1760"? I don't have a dog in this fight: there is no great solution. - Jmabel! talk 23:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Empty and mis-named since the protests occurred on 2025-06-14; it previously contained one file that had been mis-dated. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The original Flickr date on File:No Kings protest in Columbus, Ohio.jpg may have been correct: a local news story records Several hundred people gathered June 13 at the Ohio Statehouse for a "No Kings" protest opposing numerous Trump policy decisions and actions on that Friday, prior to the main day of protests on the Saturday. Belbury (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
You are right, I missed that bit of local variation. The time stamp given originally (22:54:07) is too late in the evening for what is shown in the photo, so given that the main protest was on the 14th and the Flickr upload was on the 14th, I figured the date and time given by the uploader must be wrong (or perhaps associated to a different time zone). But looking at the media photos for the June 13 gathering, it probably is the one depicted in this photo. I will restore it to the category and we can leave it, with my apologies. --RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Yes, all these people are saints. Do you really want to add references to every category for every person? You can find such in the corresponding articles in the main Wikipedia, where is the right place for it. I don't see the need for such complication, considering how many categories we have with words "saint" or "holy" here at Commons. Should we rename every single one of them to a longer synonym? For what purpose? --Shakko (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Not every bishop is a saint. If there is evidence that certain bishops have been canonised, then they should be categorised as such. I would not question members of such a category being also members of this icons category. However, the name should still reflect the contents of the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Corsican and Breton nationalisms are nationalisms in France, but they are not French nationalism (the state-ish one). The difference here is the typical one between stateless nationalisms and state nationalism, as with Galician nationalism and Spanish nationalism. Strakhov (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it needs an explanation. Its not obvious. Rathfelder (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm including all the subcategories here but this seems like it should really be renamed to Category:Sanborn maps TIF images with categorized JPGs (to match the naming convention) and added as a subcategory to Category:LC TIF images with categorized JPGs. I also propose the deletion of the specific subcategories as they are categorization for the sake of categorization. People can look them up image by image or download the names and change them from JPGs to TIFs. We can then separate the Sanborn maps images from the LC TIF category. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
"Traffic collision" is a far broader and more open-ended term than "road accidents" or "road incidents" Trade (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Hello,
English is not my native language so I might be mistaken, but for me, accident is broader than collision. A collision involve two vehicles or a vehicle and an obstacle, but a vehicle can have an accident alone (e.g. loss of a wheel, roadway departure).
Oppose – agree with what Cdang said.Things like this are road accidents but not necessarily a collision and when a collision is involved that's not the defining or key characteristic I think Road accidents is broader in some important aspects while Traffic collisions is broader in other maybe undesirable aspects. Note that the linked English Wikipedia article is called Traffic collisions. It has this content on the matter early in its lead: The commonly used term car accident is increasingly falling out of favor with many government departments and organizations: the Associated Press style guide recommends caution before using the term and the National Union of Journalists advises against it in their Road Collision Reporting Guidelines. Some collisions are intentional vehicle-ramming attacks, staged crashes, vehicular homicide or vehicular suicide. This category here simply does not include things like "ramming attacks, staged crashes, vehicular homicide or vehicular suicide" which should go into separate categories. Maybe it needs to be checked if this cat should be linked with a different Wikidata item or whether a broader parent category should be created, whether a new Wikidata item should be created, and whether the EN WP article should be discussed (eg for renaming). Also see the image. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Propose renaming this category to "Sports and recreation on the Isle of Wight" so that it can more comfortably include recreational content that people might not necessarily think of as "sports", such as recreational riding, children's playgrounds, etc. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the category tree is "sports in (the) geographic region". -- Blackcat[write me] 22:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
If I was starting from scratch, I would globally combine "sports and recreation" since these overlap or are ambiguous in some cases. However, perhaps it is unlikely that there would be a will now to combine the separate category hierarchies that have developed, in which case I suppose that I should create category Category:Recreation on the Isle of Wight. The organisation of parent levels Category:Recreation in the United Kingdom and Category:Recreation in England look a logical mess to me presently, but that can be addressed separately from this point, if anyone cares. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Me too - if I were to start from scratch - would made other chooses in life, but here we are. The daughter categories should keep consistency with mother ones. To achieve what you wish, you should rename the whole tree, not the bottom category only. -- Blackcat[write me] 09:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Currently, "Mottos" categories are not subdivided into per-usage categories, since the principle would lead to complexify the whole heraldry tree structure, for an example, it would suggest that civic heraldry, ecclesiastical heraldry, personnal heraldry, should be divided so too, which is not advisable, as it would suggest that it shoud be done for any heraldic element, which is not advisable for the heraldry tree structure potentially contains a infinity of combinations, i.e. potentially an infinity of subcategories. Thus, the suggestion is not to divide Category:Spanish-language mottos in heraldry into per-usage subcategories (fictional, civic, etc.) Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Weird (and wrong) assumption. I never proposed to divide the heraldry tree among civic, ecclesiatical, personal, etc., nor did anyone else. They're all branches of real heraldry. Fictional arms should not be casually listed among real arms, they need to be clearly labeled as fictional. Daniele Fisichella 16:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
"Weird (and wrong) assumption" I understand, but now that this category exists, it's implicitly suggested that it can also be done for civic heraldry & others, as a start, in Category:Spanish-language mottos in heraldry, even more, for the whole to be consistent, it must now be done, since the question that naturally arises now is: "then, why categorise Spanish-language mottos by "imaginary heraldry" and not by "civic heraldry"…?
Although they're fictional, these coats of arms do exist, and have their place in general heraldry category, just like users' coats of arms; the aim here is not to develop parallel heraldry tree structure based on usage criteria.
For the heraldry offers potentially an inifinty of combinations, thus an infinity of subcategories, which prohibits the creation of parallel structures, as this would lead to potentially infinite (additional) complexity.
@Kontributor 2K: You don't have to list any detail in the file name, as long as you have it among the listed categories. You can't list any info in the file names, you got to be concise; that's why we have multiple categories per file. That's basic common sense, which you are showing you may be lacking. Daniele Fisichella 11:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
“That's basic common sense, which you are showing you may be lacking”
@Est. 2021: To be completely consistent with the logic behind this and incidentally that, shouldn't you also create specific categories like, for an example, “Category:Gules 1 lion rampant or in imaginary heraldry” for this category or like “Category:1 rose or in in imaginary heraldry” for such a file, and so on?
It seems that this would perfectly follow the same logic as Category:Spanish-language mottos in imaginary heraldry; also, following this model, one might think that this could be done for all heraldic fields, Users'Coa, ecclesiastical CoAs, civic, personnal, etc., and so on, for an infnity of possible combinations, as heraldry allows.
That would be a major step forward—an undeniable benefit, wouldn't it?
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Will you ever make a correct (or even just sensible) assumption? They always lack basic understanding and common sense, and they're always wrong. Daniele Fisichella 11:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
? This message addressed to me (Will you/assumptions always wrong)(once again) is very, very off-topic.
Can't the the facts regarding the absolute logic of this category be simply addressed?
Let's also remark that you unacceptably emptied this category while the discussion is still ongoing, without even having anyone else to support your deletion proposal. You show no respect for the guidelines of this project, and you should definitely be ashamed of that. Daniele Fisichella 11:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I'm too aware of the risk that someone follows this example's logic, as I explained above. "the facts" --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Heraldry is not just about coat of arms. The tree should have Coats of arms as subcategory of Heraldry, not the other way around. Daniele Fisichella 20:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Then I guess it's just a matter of renaming some categories, without modifying the current structure.
That being said, it's not sure that it's worth doing it, given what currently stands in Category:Special or fictional coats of arms; also there aren't any items to classifiy as "heraldry" in there, only coats of arms.
We don't include vexillology in heraldry categories; sigillography is not heraldry either, but is tolerated in the categories. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Since the flags' categories (and the roundels'?) are not defined according to heraldic vocabulary, whether for pieces or colours, they are systematically removed from heraldry categories, wether they carry a CoA or not, just like the logos that are regularly dumped in there. As for “Wikipedia explicitly categorizes vexillology and sigillography in Category:Heraldry”, it doesn't mean that because it's been done this way that's in accordance with the exact definition. ex. fr:Sigillographie.
shouldn't this and the Wikipedia article be named "Cologne Central Station" or "Cologne central railway station"? I was about to move it ber cat naming policy but the EN Wikipedia article title (not the Wikidata item however) also has that title Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutral per COM:CAT categories don't necessarily have to have english names. But I see the point that english would be understandable to more people. MB-one (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Disagree Even though I usually prefer the English name, BUT: All German main train stations have the German name. I wouldn't rename this category individually if it contradicts the scheme of the other categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I have added a english description for better international understanding. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
In that case, it needs a broader discussion. Shouldn't main railway stations have the English cat titles per both COM:CAT and common sense? It can be different for other train stations. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Rename to "Cologne Central Station". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
The term "video card" comes from times, where is was used as a visual output unit. Nowadays, the term "graphics card" is established, as it works not only for display output, but so much more. Because of this, I would like to discuss a move to "Graphics cards" PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
It's because we planed an Action, where older German beekeepers should support with their images about beekeeping. Because their English is bad and they are not so comfortable with technical stuff, like finding the right categories, when they are distributed all over (and in English), we planed this "area", what's much easier to understand for them. The best pictures can afterwardsw be moved to the right special international categories.
If you check, you can find out, that there are not so many good pictures about real beekeepers work from Germany up to now. But we need it for free education courses about beekeeping and all the main works and subjects around beekeeping. A good example should be the pictures from Category:Künstliche Besamung - Bienenköniginnen
Please don't change the structure and language. It's possible to discuss, if "Beekeeping in Germany" ist the right starting point. But because the "area" is in German and from Germany, I placed it there. I thougt it's the best starting point. Dirk Liesch (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Ich verstehe nicht, was diese neue Kategorie "Category:Bienenbehausungen - Beuten" soll. Es gibt doch "Category:Beehives in Germany". Durch diese deutschen Kategorien wird doch kein älterer Imker nun Fotos in Commons einstellen. Es sind Doppel Kategorien und damit überflüssig. Bilder sollen unter 1 Namen gesammelt werden und nicht unter Begriffen in verschiedenen Sprachen. Der nächste kommt auf französisch mit ruches. Ich halte diese Aktion für Unsinn. Bitte löschen. --AxelHH (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
95% der erfahrenen und älteren Imker können mit "Beehives in Germany" nichts anfangen. Außerdem haben sie keine Ahnung, wo sie alle anderen Kategorien rund um die Imkerei finden (zudem noch in Englisch). Wenn sie das nicht übersichtlich in Deutsch finden, machen Sie nicht mit. Mich stört auch nicht, wenn die Franzosen im Bereich "Beekeeping in France" das Gleiche tun. Deshalb ist es ja im "französischen Bereich".
Ich denke , es ist nicht zielführend, wenn wir in der Commons auf die Bilder und Videos verzichten, nur weil wir auf "Englisch" bestehen. Genauso könnte man Nachfragen, warum es extra "beehives in Germany" gibt ... und dann evtl. "behives in Saxony" and "beehives in Chemnitz". Das macht zu dem konkreten Thema eigentlich noch weniger Sinn, ist aber auch ok, wenn es zu besseren Bilder zu "beehives" (Bienenbeuten) führt. Dirk Liesch (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
95% der erfahrenen und älteren Imker können mit "Beehives in Germany" nichts anfangen. Außerdem haben sie keine Ahnung, wo sie alle anderen Kategorien rund um die Imkerei finden (zudem noch in Englisch) Deswegen siehe Vorschlag W214: Add machine translated category titles on WMC (Voting möglich). (auf Deutsch Hinzufügen von maschinenübersetzten Kategorietiteln auf WMC). Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked into it, but I did not get a complete picture in mind, how it would look like for my actual example. But if it would be possible to work somehow with "translated categories", it would be a great step. I'll follow the subject. Meanwhile I'll check the pictures within the project from time to time and will link the good ones to the suitable international categories (if it's not done already). Because I need the pictures for free education classes (OER) on beekeeping, i'll look at it for sure during the next year (or two). Most of my categories got at least an English translation, and maybe I can add an suggestion which international categories could fit too. But I'm not too common with these subjects, because I'm doing mainly upload or use pictures from here. Dirk Liesch (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Ich kann vorschlagen, dass ich in der Kategoriebeschreibung auf die geeigneten internationalen Kategorien hinweise, die jeweils noch in Betracht kommen. Das sind aber manchmal mehrere Optionen oder keine passt so richtig. Dort wo es gut passt und der Deutsche Name sehr ähnlich oder gleich ist (wie bei "Category: Propolis" hab ich die "internationale Version" schon direkt integriert.
Ich hab wirklich lange hin und her überlegt, wie es funktionieren kann und wie die Imker mitmachen, die wirklich tolle Bilder haben. Die geben die Bilder gerne frei, aber die technische Hürde muss für sie möglichst niedrig sein. Außerdem möchte ich den Deutschen Imkerbund (D.I.B.) dazu bringen, das Projekt zu unterstützen und da ging es darum, wie das "einfach" wird. Das ganze in eine Kategorie "Fotoprojekt deutscher Imker" zu packen, ist eine viel schlechtere Idee, weil das komplett unübersichtlich wird, die "Sortierarbeit" um ein vielfaches schlimmer und die Akzeptanz bei den Teilnehmenden dann recht schnell gegen NULL geht.
Lasst den Bereich bitte (z.B. für 1 Jahr) und dann sehen wir, was es gebracht hat ... auch für die internationalen Kategorien rund ums Thema Imkerei. Dirk Liesch (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
"Ältere" zum Einstellen von Bildern in die Commons zu überzeugen, hab ich schon mehrfach gemacht. Die größte Hürde für sie ist dabei, die "richtigen Kategorien" zu finden. Deshalb diesen (suboptimale) Lösung/Kompromiss unter "beekeeping in Germany". Es war nich einfach so eine "Schnapsidee", sondern lange überlegt (auch wo ich es einhänge). Ich verstehe die Nachfrage und Diskussion. Es ist aber lange durchdacht und überlegt. Die guten Bilder aus der Aktion sollen ja auch in den überregionalen "internationalen Kategorien" landen. Dazu brauchen wir aber zuerst die Bilder und deshalb einen einfachen Einstieg und eine einfach verständliche Ordnung für die Zielgruppe (die erfahrenen Imker in Deutschland). Dirk Liesch (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Versetzt euch mal in euren Großvater (oder Vater, je nach Alter), seht Euch die Themenbereiche unter Category:Imkern - Ausrüstung und Arbeitsaufgaben an. Dann stellt euch vor, euer Großvater hat nun Bilder aus vielen dieser Bereiche und müsste nun die passenden englischen Kategorien dafür finden. Probiert es einfach mal für 4-5 der Themenbereiche selber aus. Dann wird klar, was ich mit der "Hürde" meine, die diese Struktur beseitigt. Dirk Liesch (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Noch zum konkreten Beispiel: "Beehives in Germany" und "Bienenbehausungen - Beuten" sind nicht identisch: Bienenbehausungen sind mehr als "Beuten" (Beehives), worunter "künstliche, menschengemachte Behausungen" für Bienen verstanden werden. Von Bienen selbstgewähle Behausungen, wie Baumhölen, Steilwandhöhlen, Schornsteine, Hohlwände u.a. sind damit nicht erfasst (sind hier aber in der Kategorie extra mit angesprochen). Die Mitmachenden müssen auch nicht nur "Beuten aus Deutschland" (Beehives in Germany) einstellen, sondern können auch Bilder aus ihrem Griechenland- oder Tansania-Aufenthalt mit einstellen. Die würden dann eigentlich in die zentrale Struktur "Beehives" gehören. Die "Beuten-Typen" in Tansania kennen sie aber vielleicht nicht (schon gar nicht in Englisch). In "Bienenbehausungen - Beuten" sollen also die "Bienenbehausungs-Bilder" deutscher Imker "aufgefangen" werden (also auch die, die sie auf Reisen aufgenommen haben) und können dann zusätzlich in die "richtigen" Kategorien der zentralen "Beehives"-Struktur (und irgendwo in "Wildnistplätze, "irgendwo anders" unter "Bienen" = Category:Anthophila) einsortiert werden. (Behaltet immer "Euren Großvater" als Fotografen im Kopf, um die Argumentation zu verstehen) Dirk Liesch (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
But I got the point, that later the best pictures should also go the the "international categories" (in English) at lower level in the "beekeeping structure". But now this would destroy the project idea to collect great pictures about beekeeping from experienced German beekeepers (who are mostly quite old and not "internet natives"). We will tell for the more tecnical ones, to think about the "international categories" by themself too. Dirk Liesch (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
At the end a bit about my background: I’ve been working in the field of OSS & OER for over 30 years—even before those terms were established. For more than 10 years, I’ve been running my own MOOCs: the WMOOC (Knowledge Management MOOC) since 2015, and the biMOOC (Bees and Beekeeping MOOC) since 2020. I’ve served on the board of a local beekeepers' association and currently hold the role of Honey Coordinator in the “Saxon Beekeepers’ Association” (LVSI). This gives me direct access to the board of the German Beekeepers’ Association (D.I.B.) as well as to bee research institutes.
I know from experience that there is a serious lack of high-quality, freely usable images (under OER-suitable licenses) in the area of beekeeping. I’ve discussed this with many "gurus" and practitioners from various branches of the beekeeping community. Please support this initiative to build a great collection of open-access images around beekeeping within the Commons. I’m confident that the best images will gradually find their way into the appropriate international, English-language categories.
But without this more concentrated “German” category structure, this photo initiative simply won’t work.
So please approve this concept/project—at least as a one-year trial. Dirk Liesch (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Du willst also alles in deutsch. Was ist, wenn andere Sprachen auf die selbe Ideee kommen? Dann findet keiner mehr zurecht. Dein Argument, dass die Kategorien Imker am Einstellen von Bilder behindern ist keins. Die Praxis ist, dass alle möglichen Arten von Bildern in Commons eingestellt werden von Neulingen ohne Kategorien. Neulinge scheitern nicht an Kategorien, weil sie sich gar nicht darum kümmern. --AxelHH (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Nein, ich möchte einen kompakten "Fotoprojekt-Bereich zur Imkerei" in Deutsch um viele tolle Bilder zur Imkerei in die Commons zu bekommen. Für einen erfahreneren, deutschen, gut englischsprachigen Imker (bzw. Imkerin) ist es dann viel einfacher, die Bilder in z.B. "Bienenbehausungen - Beuten" hintereinander "richtig" in die bestehenden Kategorien einzuordnen => sieh auch meinen Beitrag zu: Warum "Beehives in Germany" und "Bienenbehausungen - Beuten" nicht gleich sind.
Ja, gerade über 60jährige sind oft sehr genau und wollen alles richtig machen, ehe sie etwas machen und die nehmen "Kategorien", wenn sie geeignete finden können. "Zeigen" und wenn sie es verstanden haben, dann machen sie gern mit und ab über 70 haben sie auch Zeit dafür und machen das gern ... und sie haben teilweise großartige Bilder (weil sie bei Imkerei-Bildern wissen, was besonders, wichtig oder außergewöhnlich ist). Dirk Liesch (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Ich würde es gut finden, wenn die Franzosen evtl. ein ähnliches Projekt in französisch starten, wenn es dadurch mehr tolle freie Imkerei-Bilder gibt, oder wenn die Portugiesen so gute freie Bilder über die neue Bedrohung durch die "asiatische Hornisse" und die Italiener zum "Beutenkäfer" einsammeln könnten. Außerhalb von "Beekeeping in <country>" finde ich die englische Convention für Kategorien ok (weil sie ja leider nicht übersetzt genutzt werden können). Innerhalb von "Beekeeping in <country>" finde ich die jeweilige Landessprache in bestimmten Bereichen und Projekten teilweise sehr sinnvoll. Dirk Liesch (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Noch ein Aspekt: Ich habe z.B. überlegt, ob ich die internationale, zentrale Kategorie "Dadant_hives" direkt mit in "Bienenbehausungen - Beuten" einbinde (weil der Name hier selbsterkärend ist). Bei den "Segebergern" (hauptsächlich in D genutzt), habe ich das getan. Das Sammelprojekt "Imkern - Ausrüstung und Arbeitsaufgaben" schützt aber auch zentrale (internationale) Kategorien gegen Vermüllung mit suboptimalen Bildern, denn nur die wirklich guten Bilder, werden durch Dritte in die zentralen Kategorien eingebunden. Es ist also auch eine effektive Maßnahme zur Qualitätssicherung. Gerade beim upload vieler Bilder mit dem "Assistent zum Hochladen von Dateien" besteht das Risiko das eine Kategorie "überladen" wird. Bei "Dadant" besteht hier das Risiko, zudem mit "Dadant Blatt" noch eine starke Verwechslungsmöglichkeit besteht (sind unterschiedliche Systeme). Dirk Liesch (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
shouldn't all the cats here and in Category:Surgeries in Wales (+ these 2) be moved to Surgery centers in…? Surgeries refers to the activity/practice/events, not the buildings Prototyperspective (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I think "surgery" can also refer to a building or business in British English. That being the case, though, using the plural can be ambiguous. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
A "surgery" in the UK is basically what in the U.S. would be called a doctors' office. You don't have to be a surgeon to have a surgery. - Jmabel! talk 03:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
The category title(s) should be not so ambiguous. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
In the UK, a "surgery" refers to a place where doctors, typically general practitioners but not exclusively, have consultations with patients, rather than being a facility specifically for surgeons. People go to surgeries when they feel unwell. The plural form is "surgeries".
1. contains just 4 files 2. many cases of animals looking worried are not anthropomorphism as the cat suggests but them actually being sth like worried; may be best to merge to somewhere Prototyperspective (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete - who knows the workings of animal minds? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps you misread. This group of "$MENTALSTATE-looking animals" categories is named that way precisely because we want to avoid prescribing emotions to the animals who happen to *look* sad, happy, or some other way. This is basic prudence in category naming. No one's claiming the animals are feeling that way, only that their expression reads that way to a human-pattern detecting human brain. You'll notice there are many categories that are actually related to animals' true mental states, but still, instead of claiming knowledge of the mental state, they are defined and named per observable behaviours (threat displays, specific gestures, etc.). --Pitke (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
We don't need to categorize the files by how they happen to look. And there is research about which facial expressions mean which emotions etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Comments. 1. There category is not incapable of being populated (it's not more populated because I got distracted while I was doing it, and no one else has picked it up yet). We're not in the habit of deleting/merging categories here on grounds of incompleteness are we? 2. "Worried" is an inherently anthropomorphic descriptor because it implies predictive/anticipatory cognition. Animal behaviour people would talk about stress reactions and learned associations and correlations between stimuli. IMO "worried" also implied looking both stressed and thoughtful/ponderous/observant. Furthermore, an anthropomorphic reading of an animal's expression can overlap with the actual mental state of the animal. The anthropomorphism comes from the interpretation being based on human expression cues, not from a mismatch. 3. Merge where? --Pitke (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Super incomplete categories would be better to delete than to leave mislead users. Animals can be worried so your assumptions are wrong. I don't know where this could be merged to and also I don't know whether the concept or sth similar/broader to it could be useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Deletion. Renfe Cercanías AM doesn't exist anymore. This category could now be Renfe narrow gauge stations, but I would propose deleting it as a whole and relying on Narrow gauge in Spain to host all of these pictures UnniMan (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree that some reorganization might be a good idea, but as far as I can see Category:Personal life doesn't have any explicit connection to humans in its description or parent categories. -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Culture is underneath Category:Human behavior and Self is underneath Category:Humanity but this issue is also there if this wasn't the case and also personhood even if not only referring to humans does not relate to all the animals under the animal health subcat for example either. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
to categorize people by former country will end in chaos anro (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
How? There are not many 3rd-century Catholic archbishops available for categorization. Any that exist would all belong to the Roman Empire. To do otherwise would be anachronistic and a blatant example of presentism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
I think this is overcategorisation: it only contains two subcategories, and no extra parent categories beyond Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D, so it can easily be merged back into the parent category. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I initially thought there might be more people using similar naming in their user categories, but maybe you’re right and there are only a few.
Also, sometimes we have categories for Flickr or Panoramio users, so theoretically these images could also be sorted by user in the future. Another point is that this is not only about the Canon EOS 60D, I actually copied this approach from Taken_with_Canon_EOS_6D_by_user. The user who created that category has about 40k photos there, and I agree it makes sense to keep them in a separate category.
In general, I assume it’s better to split very large categories with thousands of images somehow, for example by year, genre, lens, or other criteria, but I’m not sure what the best approach is here. My reasoning was simply that if a user already has a similar category, splitting by user seems logical and reduces the number of images in the parent category, so it feels like a reasonable approach. Alexkom000 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
I think Category:Taken with Canon EOS 6D by user is similarly overcategorised and unnecessary. I'm not arguing about the existence of the individual user categories by camera, just this particular container category, as it just hides the subcategories away more than it needs to. Ultimately these should be made redundant by structured data - we're not quite there yet, but it'll be easier to do the migration with cleaner category structures. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The practical value of non-topical "taken with..." camera categories is very limited. Combining this with another non-topical property, like the uploader/photographer, is not justifiable.
With regards to the contention that these categories would be overcrowded otherwise: this is not a problem that we need to solve. These categories are indiscriminate by nature, and are not really meant to be browsed.
With regards to structured data: the creator(P170) and captured with(P4082) properties already exist and have been populated from file metadata. At this point, technical categories for cameras, lenses, shutter speeds, etc largely exist because some Commons users distrust structured data, not because they are actually needed.
The U.S. didn't conduct a national census in 2025, so this category is unlikely to ever be meaningfully populated. Eureka Lott 02:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
The category is redundant. The property lean-tos in images is covered by the p180 (depicts) and the location via the parent category "Hiking shelters in Göteborg Municipality". The category adds an unnecessary layer. Uli@wiki (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
So keep "road signs", "road name signs", "street signs" and "highway signs" as all separate? This will work only if we carefully consider what street signs really are.--TunnelESON (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete at that time there were no archbishops in Italy that were not Catholic. This is a redundant layer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. At that time, there were no archbishops in Italy who were not Catholic archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Delete as a redundant layer. Will there come a time when Protestant archbishops will reign in Italy? I doubt it. Recreate later if contrnt arises. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Though I worked on photos from Pakistan intensively for a few years, starting in 2018 along with others including A. Savin, I have never heard of Category:Kalam (union council). Kalam (Swat Valley) is a populated place in Swat District, and a Hill station in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (or, at least, this used to be the case). I think someone has rearranged our work. I have tried to put at least some of the photos back into the correct categories. Many (e.g.Khaplu Palace, Ghangche) were dumped into "Nature of Pakistan". Krok6kola (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
I will note that Kalam (union council) page on Wikipedia has a "needs verification" tag on it. None of my books on Pakistan mention it. So I will bow out of this discussion. Krok6kola (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I will just note that my reason for the name Kalam (Swat Valley) is that in the book "A Travel Companion to the Northern Areas of Pakistan" Revised Edition, published in 2011 by Oxford University Press, describes Kalam as a village in Swat Valley. Another book, published in 1981 by the Lonely Planet describes Kalam as a "hotel-dominated village" on the banks of the Swat River that almost shuts down in the winter. Krok6kola (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
The Swat district has, fairly recently, been divided into Swat and Upper Swat districts. Your sources are now fairly old. This may explain the confusion. -- Themightyquill (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Do you have more recent sources? The sources on the Wikipedia articles go back to the Wayback Machine and don't seem to verify the existence of Kalam (union council). If so, you should provide them on the Wikipedia article. Krok6kola (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
@Krok6kola: This is neither my expertise nor my interest - I'm not trying to argue over way or the other, hsst trying to figure this out. The article at en:Bar Swat District does have some references and suggests some changes have been made in the area lately. -- 11:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC) Themightyquill (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: This is an area with which I have a deep emotional connection. Wikipedia is not particularly accurate when it comes to Pakistan. Would you be more specific about the "changes that have been made in the area lately"? And would you reveal your newer sources? Krok6kola (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
@Krok6kola: The article I linked above includes several sources about the establishment of a new district in 2025 (called "Upper Swat"). This new district contains areas that were formally part of Swat District (which continues to exist in a reduced size) including Kalam. I don't see anything about changes to administrative subdivisions of Upper Swat but it seems plausible that such changes were made. My ability to look up sources is limited by language but I've found newspaper articles referring to "Kalam union council" as early as 2017. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Wikipedia's article on Union Councils Union councils of Pakistan rates them as a local government. So if you change this for Kalam, you should change it for all villages, towns and cities in Pakistan. I don't understand you logic for singling out Kalam. It seems that you edit on the commons about every three days, and engage in a massive about of recageorizing of a category each time. I urge to avoid a protracted discussion in this case, or at least start these discussions for all cities, towns, villages etc. in Pakistan. It is not, as you seem to imply, restricted to Kalam or SwaT District. Krok6kola (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
@Krok6kola: I didn't create either of these categories. I just noticed that they both existed and cover the same place. I'm not singling out Kalam. -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: This is crazy-making. I am done here. Do whatever you want. Krok6kola (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The subcategories of this should be uniform: I suggest that "Photos taken with" and "Photographs taken with" (there are even a few "Photos and videos taken with") be renamed to the "Taken with" format of the majority of the other categories. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 05:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Merge contributors failed to make sure these contain all photos and that videos are separated out. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge just move the files with cat-a-lot and redirect instead of creating a CfD. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective, while these buildings may have the same name, coordinates at Wikidata point to different buildings, so immediately merging such categories without the discussion doesn't seem like a good idea; please take a look at my comment below. Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose These categories refer to different buildings if you look at geo coordinates in Wikidata items. In fact, these buildings are 550 meters apart from each other. Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I think it should be merged back to Category:Delhi, as it seems like the distinction between the city of Delhi and the NCT of Delhi is pointless. The NCT consists of only the cities of Delhi, New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment. New Delhi and Delhi Cantonment can be covered as subcats of Delhi, just like the Category:City of London being a subcat of Category:London even though London and the City are governed separately. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
In principle I support this, but there's a ton of subcategories which make this distinction as well. Are we certain that all of them can/should be merged? Omphalographer (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Is there any basis for "Geneva Commercial Historic District", as against "Geneva Downtown Commercial Historic District", the name used by en-wiki, Wikidata, and the NRHP Registration Form? Jmabel! talk 07:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment Might it be useful to leave as a parent category - for example someone might know that a photo is of a US archbishop but not what archdiocese they are in, so they could put the media there until someone more knowledgeable could put it in a more precise subcategory? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Support Padarquetty (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose – agree with what Cdang said.
Neutral per COM:CAT categories don't necessarily have to have english names. But I see the point that english would be understandable to more people. MB-one (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Disagree Even though I usually prefer the English name, BUT: All German main train stations have the German name. I wouldn't rename this category individually if it contradicts the scheme of the other categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Agree, since it's 2026, and the Hungarian Wikipedia deleted its article on the matter. Iketsi (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_West_Virginia_State_Route_61_(Fayette_Pike)_in_Montgomery,_Fayette_County,_West_Virginia.jpg){kind=link}
Merge contributors failed to make sure these contain all photos and that videos are separated out. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}