Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03

Category:Americanization

What is the difference between Americanization and American culture abroad? Americanization is basically the introduction of the American culture in other countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way "Taiwan chicken rice burger" can only be qualified as "Taiwanization". :) 186.172.4.12 11:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
americanisation is a cultural phenomenon.
opening an american shop/restaurant outside usa is an instance of american culture abroad, but not necessarily americanising that place. you wouldnt say a sushi bar is japanisation right? RZuo (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
But most media in the category tree show nothing more than American outlets/products outside America. Images like A Pizzahut-Restaurant in Changsha.jpg, Kosher McDonalds.JPG and Pepsi in India.jpg may equally belong to American culture abroad. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
that's the problem of the categories being applied that way. i would remove them.
like your example File:Kosher McDonalds.JPG, is it americanisation of jews or Judaization of american fast food culture?
kfc offering rice in china, is that sinicisation of american fast food culture? RZuo (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


  •  Delete Everything is an example of the "ization" of some culture, country, group, religion, or whatever. So these types of categories are totally meaningless. They also don't relate to any of the media in them in any way that's actually useful. The same goes for similar categories like Category:Germanization, Category:Indianisation, Etc. Etc. All of them should be deleted as ambiguous cruft. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Projections

this should be turned into disambiguation page. right now some files show something that protrude. some show projection from projectors (devices that display graphics on a screen).

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/projection the word has way too many different meanings. RZuo (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

and i'm looking for a category for "graphics projected by projectors". does one already exist for this? RZuo (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Parkhaven, Rotterdam

duplicate of older and well populated Category:Parkhaven (Rotterdam) ErickAgain 12:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Keep - my mistake, one is about the port and the other about the street with the same name.
Then one should have "Port" in the category name and the other "Street". So rename both. --JopkeB (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Parish halls

The terms "Church hall" and "Parish hall" seem to be synonymous. Might be just an EngVar thing. Either way, one needs to be merged into the other. I would have a preference for "Parish hall" as the target since "Hall church" is an architectural term. I can see how Category:Church halls might get confused with Category:Hall churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ecolodge Pan Hou Village

looks like this category and its content is a business ad. How do I remove it and the related pictures? Атаман Павлюк (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

let's delete the annnoying ad and clean up some wikipedia server disk space! Anyone? Атаман Павлюк (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cosplay of Paramount Pictures characters

Is this really needed? Trade (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Arlington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1903

Category:1903 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Arlington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts and Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Arlington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1903 are seemingly identical by subject; the latter one has lower resultion.

Multiple other map Sanborn map series are seemingly also affected. Enyavar (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

6450x7650 is not a lower resolution than 6450x7650.
these are duplicates. The jpeg version has no discernable loss of quality from the tif version.
These duplicates exist, because the naming scheme is unusual for the maps uploaded in 2018.
I am no longer fixing any sanborn problems. I spent a week or two writing perl scripts and fix the mess, but then i ran into a bunch of idiots, who were under the impression that somebody made smart decisions in 2018.
After bringing half a dozen people up to speed on the matter in instances of 5 minutes each and dealing with 7 to 8 bureaucrats who all said different things, the half dozen new-born experts on the matter decided it is all a mess, but it should better not be touched.
I have a bunch of shell scripts to make this sanborn thing really comfortable for myself, so i pulled the plug on jerking off the wiki-clowns. Why bother, right? Nowakki (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I hadn't really looked close enough into file size and types.
At least, I certainly am no Sanborn-expert nor do I ever want to be declared one; I just regularly stumble over these maps that are strewn haphazardly all over our "old maps" categories in Commons (in my opinion, this here is some 1895 random Sanborn plan (as in cadastral plan) and should not be sorted under "1884 maps of Massachusetts"). Someone Else[TM] should bring some sense into the matter, I just find them amusingly annoying whenever I encounter them. --Enyavar (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
all the sanborn map plates/sheets are cadastral plans.
if you want them to be found, they need to appear in a map category. they are high resolution maps. i don't see the problem. Nowakki (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I just found two categories with identical content and wanted to voice my concern. If you say all is as it should be, then great, a quick resolution for a CfD for once! --Enyavar (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I said i don't see the problem with filing them as "maps".
And I said that i stopped fixing the obvious existing problems, because of a lack of good judgement encountered along the way.
The are over 500,000 sanborn map files on commons. This cannot be fixed without a consensus (in other words, some people would have to lose a vote). There are not enough people who care, to reach a consensus either way. Nowakki (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this can be closed as moot. We have had our fights over whether to put Sanborn maps as maps elsewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
    This was more about duplicate categories, where one was "1903 Sanborn maps" and the other was "Sanborn maps, 1903". I checked just now again, and by now we do have LC TIF images with categorized JPGs. So, move the content from the tif category to lc tifs, keep the other category as it is. Enyavar (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Trains of the United Kingdom by class

delete - nonsense cat, duplicating a far better structure we've had for years Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is hours of work cataloguing trains by their class number. It does not affect people who do not want trains catalogued by class number - the less useful (in my eyes) system of electric locomotives etc and then numbers still exists. However there are many many ways we can catalogue things in commons and I'm unhappy you are trying to destroy al my work by mass reverting me. Secretlondon (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This is hours of work cataloguing trains by their class number.
So why waste time doing something so wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems like a very logical and useful way to organise the sub-categories that doesn't require people to know what motive power a particular class of train is before they can navigate to it. I also cannot see any obvious reason why this is "nonsense", "wrong" or how it disrupts any parallel organisation structure that exists and the nominator has chosen not to give any explanation beyond an implied personal dislike. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
    I also note that the nominator has apparently spent a lot of effort reverting the addition of this category (with no explanation) and without waiting for the outcome of this discussion, which would definitely be explicitly contrary to en.wp policies and is should also be contrary to Commons' policies (although I admit I am rusty on these). Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This category is based on three terms: all three of them are wrong.
These are not 'trains', they're rolling stock: mostly locomotives, some are railcars or multiple units. Rolling stock have class numbers, this could work, but trains do not. Trains are temporary groups of rolling stock, assembled for a particular journey. They do have numbers or reporting codes, but they'll be something like 1V66, not 'class 158'.
There are no 'trains of the United Kingdom', no more than there are trains of England. Trains in that region are associated with Great Britain instead. Trains don't operate between Britain and Northern Ireland. But I can photograph trains from my own window as they magically transform from trains of England into trains of Wales - they're not stable or workable categories.
What's 'class'? Who allocates it? We already have British Rail TOPS Locomotive classes, Category:British Rail locomotives by 1957 number, Category:Trains of British Rail, Category:Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars of Great Britain. These aren't perfectly structured (there was no British Rail in 1957, for instance) but at least they have some implied coherent definition that we can work with. If we categorize by class, then those classes have to come from some sort of coherent list, or else it's meaningless. There's no such list or allocating body for 'the UK' (or 'England').
This all began last night from a series of changes breaking the Category:Numbers on rail vehicles tree. See User talk:Secretlondon#Number 99 on rail vehicles. That's a category tree based on simple lexical appearance and some presumed graphic design value for 'trains with numbers on'. They're visible. It's not about any semantics of the number (Take a look at what's there - it isn't.) Locos with numeric classes don't usually have that class number visible on them. NS 2900? They're numbered from 2901 upwards. None of them have 2900 on them. For the L&YR, this is especially ridiculous, because those class numbers were never used by the railway and are still contentious today (they appeared in one book, long afterwards). Now if rollback for that caught up changes to this other category tree too, that's perhaps unfortunate (and why I opened this CfD), but neither of these changes are any sort of improvement.
We've long had the problem of 'four-engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles' and poorly-thought out categorisations based on an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the details. Generally if they're self-contained I leave them be, but this was now breaking the existing Numbers tree, so it was time to clean up. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, on the basis we have categories by class number of each train, so it makes sense to have an umbrella category. The "Trains of the United Kingdom" category has existed for almost 20 years. For good or ill, there are train nerds on Commons who delight in categorising railway stock in great detail. (As for the "of the United Kingdom" vs "in the United Kingdom", I'd happily support a rename of the subcategories from "of" to "in", for the reasons Andy explains above. If a locomotive passes through my local station I've no idea where it is "of".) Sionk (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"there are train nerds on Commons " having made your disparaging opinion of other editors so clear, then I think we know how to treat your opinions on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly people on Commons who obsessively photograph and categorise railway related subjects. That doesn't invalidate my opinion on this discussion. Sionk (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This category discussion has been closed.
ConsensusNo support for proposal.
ActionsNo further action needed.
Participants
Closed by--ReneeWrites (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Well it's 18 months later and I haven't done any train categorisation since this incident. Make of that what you will. Secretlondon (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Weaponization of antisemitism

Appeal speedy deletion prod by User:Denniss. Rationale had been "emptied cat, was based on POV accusation vs Latuff", which suggests a good faith misunderstanding. The cat is a description of what the images are about – i.e. the concept of how Weaponization of antisemitism can be used to stifle free speech. It is akin to the concept of playing the Race card.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Upmerge to Antisemitism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep seperate per author, and clear Wikidata concept with corresponding content on wikis, Sadads (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Abergele surrounding area

Category:Denbigh surrounding area
Category:Hawarden surrounding area
Category:Llanarmon-yn-Iâl surrounding area
Category:Llandegla (surrounding area)
Category:Llantysilio (surrounding area)
Category:Pentrefoelas surrounding area
Category:Ysbyty Ifan (surrounding area)

Poorly defined categories created by the same editor. Either the contents are pictures of views within these communities, or they're not. I suggest the contents of these categories are merged into the main community categories. Note that communities (similar to English civil parishes) are the lowest level of local government organisation in Wales, with clearly defined boundaries. The "surrounding area" would logically be in a neighbouring community.
Communities are often named after a town or village within the community, and maybe the creator has confused the two, and these are duplicates of the community categories. But if the built-up area of that town or village forms only a small part of the community (though communities are often quite small anyway), it makes much more sense in my opinion if a subcategory of "FOO (village)" or "FOO (town)" is created. --Sionk (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong keep: Populated areas (village / town) and it's surrounding area are two very distinct places. The first is a collection of homesteads defined in all cases by name on a road sign. The surrounding area refers to the community which aren't marked on road signs, this area (similar to parishes) is much larger than the village or town, included within. I can't see how this differentiation is 'poorly defined' as both are defined geographically by the planning authority. Sionk describes these populated places as only 'communities or not (communities)' and does not take into account the populated area within the community / parish etc, which also have 'clearly defined boundaries'. Having 1 size fits all is certainly confusing and poorly defined when both community and populated area have the same name. The surrounding area category also helps ensures that only images of the village / town are within that Category, rather than clutter each populated area with hundreds of images of bypassing roads, fields of sheep, mountains and and flowing rivers miles from the actual populated area. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, these categories have the same name as the community and an associated town or village (after which the community is named). The surrounding area to the town of Denbigh is ...the Denbigh community, for example. So calling a category "Denbigh surrounding area" doesn't help much, we don't know whether this is surrounding the Denbigh urban area, or the Denbigh community. There has to be a better solution - maybe creating a Category:Denbigh (town), Category:Hawarden (village) categories etc.? Sionk (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy with any recognised term within parenthesis, as suggested, depending on defined status eg X (community}, Y (village)... The important bit is that they become separate entities rather than one big mish-mash as per status quo. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To see if the suggested format works, I've trialled one area: Category:Abergwyngregyn to Category:Abergwyngregyn (village) and Category:Abergwyngregyn (Community area). I can't guarantee that every images in the Category:Abergwyngregyn (Community area) is actually in that community, as the community boundaries are not easily mapped. Going through each one of the 500+ images to check would take days. It's already taken me two hours, whereas the general category (surrounding area) would have been done in 10 minutes. I still believe that surrounding area is a quicker and better way. Yes, Strong keep Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  •  Delete, per nom and previous discussion. "surrounding area" is vague and undefined. If it/some can be converted to "(community)" then that's fine. It indeed is helpful if the settlement is separated from the rural areas for categorisation, but should stick to more defined variables like administrative boundaries, or making settlement categories. Understand that them being intentionally vague allows for quicker categorising though. A parent category can be used if unsure. DankJae 00:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ma

this is not related to toki pona but idk what to do with it Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Probably if kept it should be moved like w:Ma and made a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Mi

this is not related to toki pona but idk what to do with it Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Probably if kept it should be moved like w:Mi and made a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Inaugurarea Expoziției de tablouri ale pictorilor Gheorghe Lisița și Veronica Iftodii „Primăvara începe cu tine” (2021-03-01)

What does it say? 186.173.117.57 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Google translate gives "Inauguration of the Exhibition of Paintings by Painters Gheorghe Lisița and Veronica Iftodii "Spring Begins with You". -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Presence in Antarctica by country

(1) What is the difference from Category:Countries of the Antarctic? (2) Why is it Antarctic in some categories and Antarctica in others? 200.111.227.105 20:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

See also this open discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Question 1: What is the difference from Category:Countries of the Antarctic?
Category:Countries of the Antarctic redirects to Category:Claimed territories of Antarctica. That category has subcats for claimed territories, which don't always indicate the country that claims them. Category:Presence in Antarctica by country has subcats for specific countries. I think we could change the redirect to point to the presence category.
Question 2: Why is it Antarctic in some categories and Antarctica in others
It's either "Antarctica" or "the Antarctic". (Antarctic can also be used as an adjective.) I found 56 uses of "the Antarctic" in category titles, and 1,624 uses of "Antarctica". Some of the uses of "the Antarctic" were for things where that's part of the actual name of something (book titles, Antarctic Ocean, Antarctic Peninsula, and probably some others). There are some categories that we could probably rename if we wanted to.
Does that explain enough? Is there some action we should take to close this discussion? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fuxing Palace Temple, Taipei

same as Category:Jingmei Fusing Temple Wikimycota (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Awarded of Velykoho Bazhaite

  • Delete Awards are generally not notable. This one is just a gong awarded by a particular archdiocese in Ukraine. If retained, Rename to Category:Recipients of the Velykoho Bazhaite award. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Notability is less of an issue on Commons as long as its defining and has several pages which it does its probably OK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    In my opinion, this award is not defining. It's just an honorific with no international recognition or respect. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bengali revolutionary

Parentless category with no clear definition and exactly one file. What exactly are the criteria to determine what does and does not belong in this category? What are appropriate parent categories? Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel:  Keep as a Bengali person. The criterion for inclusion for this category should be to include Bengali revolutionaries who had participated in Category:Indian independence movement and/or Category:Bangladesh Liberation War. I can name a few people who should belong to this category, like Category:Khudiram Bose and Category:Bagha Jatin. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Revolutionaries and Category:Bengali people should be the parents. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
At the very least, that would be Category:Bengali revolutionaries (plural); however, I see no other categories of revolutionaries by ethnicity, not even for groups like the Category:Igbo people#Igbo where there was a specifically nationalist failed revolution (the Category:Biafra#Biafra war). - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives

None of these are a 'Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives'.

Most of these are of a binocular microscope, not a stereo microscope. This is a big difference and would matter to any microscopist.

One of them is a stereo microscope. But it's a type with a single pair of objectives, and these are interchangeable. It can have as many of them as you have access to, not just 4 on a turret. In fact this one appears to have 5. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley Thank you for the review of the category name. I have choosen it on base of the inscription on File:Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives-7969.jpg and File:Ernst Leitz Wetzlar stereo microscope with 4 objectives-7970.jpg. Raymond (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the point you're making? You're arguing that these really are stereo microscopes? Or that because you've named the files already, we have to propagate the error? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley My point is about the manufacturer "Ernst Leitz Wetzlar". If I made an error related to the type stereo/binocular it should be fixed, of course. Raymond (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:VisibleWikiWomen 2018

topical categories (of individual people in this case) should not be put under wikipedia event category like this.

if no objection, then they will be removed from this. RZuo (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @RZuo, I'm the creator of this category :) Please keep in mind that this category has been in use for 6 years and it contains all the contributions of the very first #VisibleWikiWomen campaign. What's your suggestion for this category? Do you think it should be transformed in a topical category? I have no opposition to that, since other #VisibleWikiWomen categories are also topical. But please, can you explain a little bit more about your idea of what to do with this one? I just don't want to make drastic changes that can cause a valuable memory loss. Even, I can do the change, after a reasonable discussion. Thank you! Señoritaleona (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
"other #VisibleWikiWomen categories are also topical"
no they are not. examples Category:VisibleWikiWomen 2021 Category:VisibleWikiWomen 2022 only contain subcategories related to your event, but not any topical categories (of individual people!).
the women, of which you uploaded pictures, are not defined by "VisibleWikiWomen..." in fact, they probably have no interaction with your event or your organisers at all.
what's appropriate, is (1) apply these event categories only to files or your event pages, but not to topical categories, (2) if you want to have a list, you create one in gallery or commons namespace, instead of using a category.
take a look at Category:Wiki Loves Monuments. monuments that were photographed are not listed in those event categories. only the photos are. RZuo (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey @RZuo! So, your proposal is to make VisibleWikiWomen_2018 a non-topical hidden category, correct? If that's what you mean, I'll be happy to proceed with the change. Thanks! Señoritaleona (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
it's to remove all these categories from this category, e.g.
RZuo (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Alpine passes in Switzerland by name

I think we can upmerge this into Category:Alpine passes in Switzerland. Similar categories for Italy/Austria have barely any entries.

It was also a subcategory of Category:Mountain passes of Switzerland by name, but as a flat category, that shouldn't have such subcategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Biafra Category:Igbo people