Category:Chapelle Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Hongrie de Ventiseri

Crette catégorie fait double emploi avec la catégorie "Category:Chapelle de Piediquercio", préexistante. Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Je ne vois aucune objection à une fusion, mais je ne sais pas le faire. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fr.Latreille: Quel est le nom correct? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nom correct ? Cà dépend des conventions. La catégorie que j'ai créée en premier utilise une référence de localisation, ce qui pour moi est le plus pertinent pour qui fait une recherche sur la ... localité (cette chapelle est dans un petit hameau perdu - mieux vaut dire tout de suite lequel). L'autre fait référence au "saint patron" de l'édifice, info intéressante, mais à mon avis secondaire (je veux dire : qui doit venir en second). Mais, je le souligne, ce n'est que mon avis. Accessoirement, je m'aime pas les noms trop longs. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fr.Latreille: Merci. Je comprends que ajoutant le nom "Piediquercio" aid d'identifier l'hameau, mais normalement, nous utilisons le nom propre. Dans ce cas, le nom propre "Chapelle Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Hongrie de Ventiseri", non ? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nom propre, nom correct, et aussi nom d'usage (comment les gtens du lieu la nomment-ils?), y a-t-il une règle officielle? une règle propre à WP:fr ? La seule certitude, c'est que la chapelle (ou l'église, ou cathédrale) existant à tel endroit a été dédiée à tel saint patron. Et souvent on mentionne les deux pour la nommer (Notre-Dame de Paris, vous connaissez ?). On a donc a priori le choix.

Reste qu'il faut, dans notre cas précis, fusionner deux catégories. Et je répète que je ne sais pas faire. Que celui qui le fera choisisse le nom qu'il retient. Je ne le contesterai pas. --Fr.Latreille (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fr.Latreille: il n'y a que deux étapes en fusionner des catégories: d'abord recatégoriser des images à la catégorie retenue et après rediriger ou supprimer l'autre catégorie. C'est tout, mais avant faire ça, il faut déterminer la catégorie à retenir (ou peut-être à créer si aucune suffit). --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Fr.Latreille and Themightyquill: Category:Chapelle de Piediquercio is redirected to Category:Chapelle Sainte-Élisabeth-de-Hongrie de Ventiseri. Is this French-only category-for-discussion solved?--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with things as they are. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have prefered a shorter name, but it seems that many people like a name with patron saint AND localisation. As you want it... Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Tsurumisaki

See also: Category talk:Cape Tsurumi.

I'm sorry for renaming this category to Category:Cape Tsurumi before I read the note page, but I requesting renaming this category to Category:Cape Tsurumi strongly. Because the name of this cape can be "Tsurumizaki" in Japanese also, see or . そらみみ (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that's the only reason, Category:Tsurumizaki can easily be redirected here. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

But in Japanese, this means "Tsurumisaki" could be divided as 2 words: "Tsurumi" and "saki"(cape).--そらみみ (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

While I would in principle support the category being named "Cape Tsurumi" (with redirects from Tsurumisaki and Tsurumizaki), the discussion at Category talk:Cape Tsurumi suggests that Tsurumisaki can not be divided. Perhaps おいたんし can explain? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

For each caracter of "鶴御崎" (Tsuru-mi-saki), "鶴"(tsuru) means a crain, "崎"(saki) means a cape, and "御"(mi) is a prefix added to "崎"(saki). "御"(mi) in combination with "崎"(saki) shows that the cape is a sacred or beautiful place (See wikt:御#Japanese). Accordingly, "御"(mi) and "崎"(saki) cannnot be devided. --おいたんし (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being late, I think maybe 御 is a character just representing the kana み, not having really meaning. Because name of the district near this cape is "鶴見" (same pronunciation, but different kanji), and according to this website , the most commonly name of this cape used to be "鶴見崎", but changed to "鶴御崎" after WWII.--そらみみ (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The current name of the cape is not "鶴見崎" but "鶴御崎". "鶴御崎" cannot be divided into "鶴御" and "崎". --おいたんし (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. So according to the principle 3-1 of English-translation by Geographical Survey Institute (置換方式の適用が不能又は不適当な場合「固有名詞的部分の文字数が短い、単体で使用されることがないなどにより、置換方式では日本人が理解できない場合」は追加方式。それ以外は置換方式。), maybe "Cape Tsurumisaki" is right.--そらみみ (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Holland America Line

I have found two Categories with similar subject, i.e. "Ships of Holland America Line" and "Cruise ships of Holland America Line‎" could they be merged into one? Gillfoto 18:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Are all the ships cruise ships, or are any of them not cruise ships? If they're all cruise ships, then maybe we can eliminate the non-cruise category. In either case, anything in the cruise ship category shouldn't be in the other category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Images of these ships can be taken during their lifetime as liners and the time as cruise ships. Most of them have not all the time been cruise ships. --Stunteltje (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Holland America Line had also other significant ships like the Bilderdyk. I think, also the cargo ships are interesting.--Wolfgang Fricke (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gillfoto, Auntof6, Stunteltje, and Wolfgang Fricke: given Stunteltje's and Wolfgang Fricke's replies, i suppose the solution is to keep both cats? and research can be done by users to check whether a ship had been both a liner and a cruise ship in its lifetime, and add such a ship to both cats?--RZuo (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Holland America Line was founded decades before commercial cruising began. Therefore none of its early ships was a cruise ship. The company has had many cargo ships. And it has had many passenger ships that did not cruise. The proposal to merge the two categories is based on a lack of knowledge of the company's fleet.

This discussion has been dormant for nearly three years. Someone please close it, and please delete the template from the relevant categories. Motacilla (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Houses in the United States built in 1975

Why is this category "Houses in the United States built in 1975" and the subcategories "Houses built in Arizona in 1975‎" and "House built in California in 1975" ? In other words, why isn't this category Houses built in the United States in 1975 like the subcategories? Mjrmtg (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I changed the category-names for Houses built in the United States because many older houses where not built in the USA (for example in California or in Alaska) but they are Houses in the United States which are built in xxxx --anro (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

At least all categories for houses built by state should be renamed in the same way --anro (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I support renaming the state/territory cats to something like "Houses in <place> built in <year>". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support proposed renaming; logical. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. When implementing user:Auntof6's principle "Houses in <place> built in <year>", there seems to be several thousands renamings. So we shouldn't rush with such massive renamings without obvious consensus or compromise--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

support Houses in <place> built in <year>, which prevents factually wrong titles like Houses built in South Sudan in 1990. RZuo (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Heiliger Wandel

merge with Category:Return from Egypt, preferredly to later Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

According to the description on the category, those are not the same thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: The German category description at Category:Heiliger Wandel lists "Rückkehr aus Ägypten" ("Return from Egypt") as an alternative name. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Instead of Renaming Categories or merging them, we should put our resources into multi-language displays of categories. "Heiliger Wandel" is an own name and a regional and religious term of this motive of art and religious despiction. It should also stay searchable under that name. Use Wikidata and Wikidata Infoboxes to make that possible ((Q1424655). "Return from Egypt" does not have a Wikidata Entry.--Wuselig (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Leaving a redirect would be enough to keep Heiliger Wandel as searchable. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It also gives two other alternate names, which I took to mean that the term could apply to any of the three (translated, they mean Return from Egypt, return from the temple, and walk of the Holy Family over the mountains), and even to anything showing the Holy Family walking together. At least one of them, this one, doesn't show Mary or Joseph, so it can't be the return from Egypt. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

this one shows Mary & Joseph (with the white lily) and in addition 2/3 of the holy trinity. Not sure what you mean (did you mean this one?)

But you are right, that the German description does list three different meanings. And therefore it will not be justified to do the proposed merge. I for my part would like to withdraw the proposal. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, the file I linked is called "St Peter und Paul" so I was thinking they were the adults in the image. But you're right, it does look like it could be Mary and Joseph. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Peter and Paul is the name of the church. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If Category:Heiliger Wandel is a broader category than Category:Return from Egypt, the latter should be a subcategory and the images should be moved accordingly. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't read it that way. The way I read it, "Heiliger Wandel" refers to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph walking together. That could be on the way back from Egypt or at other times. If anything, Category:Heiliger Wandel could be subdivided by what specific event is depicted (for example, Category:Heiliger Wandel (return from Egypt)), if that can even be determined. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Mózg Józefa Piłsudskiego

Not English, should be "Józef Piłsudski's brain" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I renamed. In addition, I suggest to delete this Polish name. Then, CFD can be closed.--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Pocket pistol

There is missing a definition. And as far as i read the en article there doesen't exist a clear definition. Sanandros (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

but the pocket pistol exist and some many picture are named "pocket pistol" (search on commons picutre to confirme) and if seach on web is a pistol so little maybe for use to woman concealable or easily hidden. Maybe to trasformate on a subcategory. --Numobeer (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that we name things pocket pistol but what I doubt is that it is usefull to categorize it as such.--Sanandros (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Sanandros: enwiki en:pocket pistol exists. I think we can close this CFD as keep?--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

And what is with the definition?--Sanandros (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

i agree this phrase, just a bit less vague as "small pistols", might lack a precise definition which we could rely on to determine its scope. but on the other hand, there are many "pocket something" cats Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Pocket and there doesnt seem to be a problem. RZuo (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Spinsters

The word "spinster" has two different meanings: a person who spins fibers (which meaning is obsolete) and an unmarried woman. This cat seems to be categorized for both, but it should be for only one. Whichever one it is, I think this category should have a different name. Auntof6 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Spinster as an "old" unmarried woman is both derogatory and ultimately subjective based on context. At which age does someone become a spinster? Would we include bio categories here, or just photos? I don't know to what degree "spinster" (as in one who spun wool) was every considered a profession. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I created this category intending to refine its placement but apologize for not getting to it until now. I propose the following: for the occupational role, "spinner" should be used as a subcategory of "spinning". The word "spinster" as a social category can be seen as derogatory, or not. I suggest that it be retained as a category under "women by family role." There are photos that specify that a woman in the photo is a spinster (family role). These are valuable in showing the life of unmarried women. The user will benefit by finding all these photos in one place. I will place a few lines of text at the top of the page stating that the page is for a spinster in the sense of family role only, and also that the images should be either identified in the caption as "spinster" or "unmarried", or the modern person in the photo identifies as a spinster or unmarried person. That will, I hope, at least cut down on the number of photos prematurely categorized into the category. Opinions? Downtowngal (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

How is "spinster" a role? Just being unmarried doesn't define what you do in a family. And why not call it "unmarried women" instead? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am thinking about it from the point of view of the user. If you were looking for a picture of an older unmarried woman from the 16th century, and you went to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women, where would you look first? I suggest that "Women by family role" is the best higher category because you are looking for a woman who is defined by her social relationship. Until recently, a woman who was not married (and past the age of marriage, whatever that was) was a distinct social category that people would notice when they painted or wrote about her. The problem with using "unmarried woman" is that it is too general and susceptible to abuse. Every single person who posts a picture of a modern-day unmarried woman age 23 potentially could choose that category. I think the category should be restricted to women who are identified in the image already as "spinster" or "unmarried", or who see those as a modern identity. I recognize that there is a disconnect between the historical meaning and the present meaning, but I think we should not lose the opportunity to create a distinct category that documents women's history by opening it up to every modern female >18 years who is not married. Downtowngal (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As there has not been any more discussion, I have made the change described above, and I have created the category "Spinners (people)" for images of people spinning. I request that this Discussion be closed. Thank you. Downtowngal (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Two years later, there has been no discussion so I will again close this discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Downtowngal: You participated in the discussion, so I don't think you can close it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I close it? It seems that nobody else is interested in the subject, and the Wikipedia page "Spinster" matches the Commons category "Spinsters," leaving the Commons category "Spinners (people)" for thread-spinning people, as I proposed. I ask sincerely, what new evidence could be brought forward to change these category definitions? Downtowngal (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Informants of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/09/Category:Liquidation of Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/12/Category:Flags of the GDR Ministerium für Staatssicherheit.

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Rank insignia of the GDR Ministry of State Security.

Can we not change that cat to a gallery cat? Otherwise we have files in the intelligence cats which are completly unrelated to the intelligence topic.--~~ Sanandros (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess he means that you have pictures like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1990-1006-020, 1. FC Dynamo Dresden - Rot-Weiß Erfurt 3-0.jpg in the Category:Intelligence (information gathering) because of Torsten Gütschow > Informants of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit > Ministerium für Staatssicherheit > Intelligence agencies > Intelligence (information gathering). But in my opinion that's part of the category structure and nothing to solve isolated for that category. --Indeedous (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's what I mean. And that's what I don't like. Because he was at that point no more an informant.--Sanandros (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a basic part of our categorization system, and affects almost all categories if you dig far enough. Sub-categories aren't always connected by examples of a broader category, but also by related categories. Quick example: Category:Charlie Keller is clearly not a horse, but he's in Category:Horse trainers, which is in Category:Horse training, which is in Category:Use of horses, which is in Category:Horses. There's no way to avoid it. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure there is a way out if we use more galleries.--Sanandros (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Or as alternative we delete this cat as it doesen't show any informats in action. And the Charlie Keller cat has the same problem which I think is also not correct.--Sanandros (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

But why should we use a gallery for this, but not for Category:Horse trainers? And if for those two, then why not for basically other category. Category:Sculptors is a subcategory of Category:Sculptures - should we not put any pictures of sculptors in Category:Sculptors unless they are actively sculpting in the photograph? What does it matter if Category:Torsten Gütschow is a great-grand-child category of Category:Intelligence agencies? Why is that a problem? Obviously Category:Torsten Gütschow shouldn't go directly in Category:Intelligence agencies, but assuming he was actually an informant, I don't see the problem with his category being in Category:Informants of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yea actually all are a violation of the Selectivity principle on com:categories we have on de wp for that topic categories and object categories where one can differetiate between a topic where something which belongs to a broad category goes in and the object category where only things are categorisied which are realing that object.--Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's the way almost all categorization is done at commons. If you want to change this, I would suggest you bring it up on at the Commons:Village pump and try to get consensus on a new policy as it certainly extends far beyond this one category. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it is an unspoken consensus but anyway we could already do it with the current policy if we apply it strictly. I'm mostly interested in my fields to keep them in order.--Sanandros (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Unspoken or not, it's the consensus that this is not a problem. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with themightyquill. This "problem" is nearly universal to the Commons category tree. Fixing it would require extensive changes to the core structure of the Commons category tree and common practice. "Is-A" relationships are not transitive over multiple levels in the category tree and that's just how it's going to be. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Yezidis

Yezidis or Yazidis? E4024 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely weird that we have a tree like this:

• Category:Yazidism (a)
  • Category:Yezidis (e)
    • Category:Yezidis by country‎ (e)
      • Category:Yazidis in Armenia‎ (a)
      • Category:Yazidis from Iraq‎ (a)
    • Category:Demonstration in Paris to support Kurds and Yazidis persecuted by ISIL (23 August 2014)‎ (a)

I don't have a preference, but it would make sense to use one spelling. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

maybe Yazidis, since https://www.yazda.org and https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yazidi also use Yazidis.--Roy17 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• More than two years of discussion (I mean lack of it) and people make redundant cats like "Yazidis in Iraq" and "Yazidis from Iraq" in the meantime. Shall we close some discussions please? Josh? (Tú eres el único que corta el queque aguí. :) --E4024 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know if this discussion is still active but I endorse Yazidis ("A" spelling) over the "E" spelling. I think "e" is the spelling in the (French-influenced) Kurdish alphabet and in French, but "Yazidi" is more normal in English. (Ping: @E4024: , @E4024: ) GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@E4024: There appears to be clear consensus for this change (and I agree with it). I think you are good to make the change. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the EnWiki article spells it Yazidis. Long overdue fix. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Scales

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation category? Some of the items in it are for weighing, some are for other kinds of measuring or evaluating (for example, a lot of what's under medical scales), and then there are musical scales. Those are not the same kind of thing, so I think it should be a disambiguation page. We could even include Category:Fish scales, Category:Scales (ratio), Category:Tornado scales, and possibly other things. Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Musical scales aren't about measurement, are they? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support w:Scales is a redirect to Scale. The WP category should probably also be disambiguated, which I will start a discussion for. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support should be a disambiguation category Oxyman (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support turning into a disambig category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Time project

Could we find a more accurate and more helpful name for this category? And maybe some additional parent categories? Themightyquill (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed. But have no idea now. --FML ^hello 19:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Themightyquill and FML: we are really stucked with this category. It is sure that this is a set of files probably depicting the sun moving in time. And we also know that these files are drawn by Felipe Micaroni Lalli (using probably CorelDRAW!® or Inkscape)--Estopedist1 (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Estopedist1: Category:Time diagrams by Felipe Micaroni Lalli? -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid FML is no longer active, but would you agree, Estopedist1, that Category:Time diagrams by Felipe Micaroni Lalli could work, as proposed by Themightyquill? Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense: I agree. Thanks for pinging me! Estopedist1 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Occasio

Is this redundant with Category:Kairos (Time) ? Themightyquill (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Themightyquill: philosophical stuff. Hints:

• Occasio = Latin name for Caerus, personification of opportunity (source: en:Occasio)
• Caerus (Greek: Καιρός, Kairos, the same as kairos) was the personification of opportunity, luck and favorable moments (source: en:Caerus)
• For the philosophical term for opportunity, see Kairos (source: hatnote of en:Caerus)--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Timing

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Time diagrams.

Is Category:Timing redundant with Category:Timekeeping ? Themightyquill (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they're the same. Timekeeping means keeping track of the normal advance of time. Timing can mean measuring how long something takes, such as a race. It can also refer to other things; in fact en:Timing is a disambiguation page.

On a related note, I think the clock-related subcats under Category:Electronic timing probably belong elsewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying "timekeeping" means tracking at what time (of day) things happened, while "timing" means how long (duration) things take? I'd say the difference is pretty slim in practice. But then Category:Stopwatches should be in Category:Timing not Category:Timekeeping? - Themightyquill (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. Timekeeping is keeping track of what time it is. The Wiktionary definition is "the measurement of time, or determining what the local time is". It doesn't have anything to do with events. I agree about stopwatches, because they don't know the time of day. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I see that would be a clear way to divide things, but it doesn't match with the text at en:Timekeeper, which seems to include both definitions (e.g. "time remaining during events such as sports matches" and en:Time clock.) Maybe moving Category:Timing to Category:Duration or something similar would make sense? - Themightyquill (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'd agree Time is more general (about for example how long something is or the time between 2 dates etc) while Timekeeping is something we do, for example, by saying that its 10 O'clock or not being lake for something. Timing is generally when something happens or keeping track of how long something takes etc. So yes Timekeeping and Timing should be a sub category of Time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Keep as is – no it's not. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ak Sarai palace in Shahrisabz

Saray (Sarai) means palace. No need for the word "palace". Also if it were part of the formal name, then it should begin with P, not p. Lastly, "in ..." is not very much in accordance with our naming practice, and possibly not necessary. Are there several "Ak Sarai"s? (For easy ref to colleagues, "ak saray" means "white palace".) E4024 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. Many Wikipedias has article of this palace, but not enwiki. Several name variants exists: eg en:Shahrisabz mentions "Ak-Saray Palace"; Wikidata entry uses the name "Aqsaray Palace". Maybe user:Mardetanha can help?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fine Art

The definition on this category matches neither the definition indicated at en:Fine art nor the way I've heard the term used in the past. Even if we change the description to match the usual meaning, the term might be too subjective to be meaningful on Commons. Auntof6 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "fine art" is an established enough terminology that we should attempt to represent it in the category tree. The current category description appears to match enwiki quite well (in fact having been largely copied from there). I do think the correct name is Category:Fine art. The main difficulty will be finding the correct categories to child to it, as e.g. Category:Painting includes both "fine" painting and decorative painting. It might be hopeless without someone to champion it and try to sort it out. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Iustitia

Suggest move to "Justitia (goddess)" see talk Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi @Lobsterthermidor: go ahead and have a nice day. --Bohème (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lobsterthermidor: ups, maybe not a good idea : she's a Roman deity. --Bohème (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• I just wanted to note that enwiki and Wikidata appear to have settled on "Lady Justice" as the name of this entity. I have no particular preference between that and the suggestion, but I believe that all three of these names describe the same entity and Iustitia is the least-used and therefore undesirable. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Infant bicycle seats

Currently, this category contains lots of images of Category:Bicycle child carriers carrying children who are really too old to be characterized as "infants". I suggest we need two categories, Category:Infant bicycle seats should be a subcategory of Category:Bicycle child carriers. Geo Swan (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Images where a non-infant is a passenger...

1. File:Bicileteada_(8262077556).jpg -- when the child is old enough to hold on themselves I suggest we no longer consider them an "infant"
2. File:Alexei Nikolaievich of Russia and boatswain Derevenko.jpeg
3. File:Cycling_in_Chicago_08.jpg
4. File:Green_Travel_Day_22_September_2010_Jersey_8.jpg
5. File:Remarkable_bike_with_a_kid_passenger_seat,_and_extra_robust_front_basket.jpg
6. File:スーパーよさこい_タテカン_(30340683738).jpg
7. File:ママ用チャリ_2016_(28315207524).jpg
8. File:Bicycle_in_The_Hague_24.JPG
9. File:Barcelona lEixample 14 (8314885776).jpg
10. File:Barcelona lEixample 14 (8276342077).jpg

 Support Category:Infants redirects to Category:Babies, which is a sub-category of Category:Children, so children is broader, including both infants and older kids. I'm not necessarily convinced we need Category:Infant bicycle seats at all. Do we have examples of bicycle seats that work for babies but not for 1 year olds? Can we just merge to Category:Bicycle child carriers (or Category:Child bicycle seats or Category:Children's bicycle seats)? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Support --DALIBRI (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

stale discussion. Am I correct that user:Themightyquill and user:DALIBRI supports to merge Category:Infant bicycle seats and Category:Bicycle child carriers. Enwiki article uses the name en:Children's bicycle seat. I would support the merging in favor or Category:Children's bicycle seats --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a logical subcategory for Category:Children's seats. All the parents categories of both can stay. -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Karine A

Why do we need a reidirect? I'd delete it as Karine A existed before this operation and is still existing on the ground of the sea after the operation. So if there are pics abut that ship we should categorise them in an independet cat. Sanandros (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with moving to separate ship category with Category:Operation Noah's Ark as a sub-category. I've just redirected Category:Karine A affair to Category:Operation Noah's Ark because the wikipedia article is actually at en:Karine A affair. If we're not going to create a ship category, however, then there's no need to delete the redirect. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

We have File:KarinA6012002.jpg which actually shows the ship but is also part of affair so if we categorize them in both cats we have an overcat case. Karine A has also a IMO. So we could do a ship cat but I'm not an expert in that.--Sanandros (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Sanandros and Themightyquill: if only one file for the ship named "Karine A", there is no need to do one-member category. The nominated category can be kept or deleted, I prefer deleting to hold a red link for the ship. Besides, because enwiki is under the name en:Karine A affair, we should also follow the enwiki (currently Category:Karine A affair is a redirect)--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Having a category for the ship, even if its only content is Category:Operation Noah's Ark, allows Category:Karine A to be placed in relevant ship-related categories. It would be weird to have Category:Operation Noah's Ark under Category:Ships by name (flat list). -- Themightyquill (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We can do following. Keep Karin A as a ship category with IMO Number. Keep the affaire in a seperate cat and having a topyic cat for both. That's how we do it on de wp.--Sanandros (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Barefoot female, sole exposed

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Topless and barefoot female.

Category:Barefoot women, soles apparent already exists. If there is a difference between "soles exposed" and "soles apparent", I don't understand it. Maybe "Barefoot women with soles of feet visible" is better wording for both? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the difference, either. At least one file is in both categories. How about the even simpler "Soles of women's feet"? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I would support that title, but I suspect there may be subtleties apparent only to foot fetishists. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are such subtleties, but do we need to take them into account when naming categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, World's Lamest Critic. I agree with Auntof6. The parent category is Category:Human sole (foot). Let's choose a sub-category that is closest in possible to name as that. Category:Soles of women's feet or Category:Women's soles (foot) or whatever. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It might be like putting all files in Category:Barefoot women into Category:Women's feet. Category:Barefoot women, soles apparent‎, as plural, allows one or more; much like for that reason Category:Topless and barefoot women is better than Category:Topless and barefoot female.   :-/   DMBFFF (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it changed since the discussion started, but most of the "exposed" images are close-ups, while in the "apparent" ones they happen to be visible due to walking, sitting, etc. The former makes sense, but I question the need for the latter. Nyakase (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pregnant women with nude abdomen

Propose renaming to "Pregnant women with visible abdomen" or "Pregnant women with abdomen uncovered". "Nude abdomen" is odd phrasing and implies that exposing the abdomen is a form of nudity. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree for "uncovered" or "unclothed". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership

Suggest renaming to Trans-Pacific Partnership. Category is almost entirely is about the now defunct w:Trans-Pacific Partnership and not the 4 country TPSEP that came before it. The smaller amount of files that have to do with the TPSEP can go into a new category for that agreement. RA0808 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @RA0808: specific topic. I am  Neutral. Per enwiki, there seems to be three agreement:

• Category:Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (= enwiki en:Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement)
• Category:Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (suggested to be renamed to Category:Trans-Pacific Partnership) (= enwiki en:Trans-Pacific Partnership)
• Category:Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (= enwiki en:Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership)

--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not just merge all files to be in third category, and {{Category redirect}} the first two? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Arcades in Marseille

Le teme anglais "Arch" signifie "arcade". Cette sous-catégorie n'a pas lieu d'être. Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

J'ajoute que le terme "arcade" en anglais signifie "galerie marchande". Il y a confusion totale dans la définition de ces catégories et le rattachement des fichiers qui y figurent. (Pour mieux comprendre, voir les autres catégories par ville, correctement remlplies). --Fr.Latreille (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

stale discussion. @Fr.Latreille: the nominated category seems to have only arcades in the sense of architecture. Or is there any problem yet?--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. The word 'arcade' has two meanings (in French as well as in English), and I thought the 'amusement' one was preferable. It seams I was wrong. The end. Fr.Latreille (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:2500s mountains of Poland

No 2500s mountains in Poland. Polish NW peak of Rysy has 2499. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

According to en:Rysy, its middle summit is just over 2500m. Is that incorrect? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle summit has 2503 but lies only in Slovakia. On the Polish-Slovakian border lies NW summit (2499). Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Marcowy Człowiek, that's interesting. I certainly see your point - there are no 2500m peaks in Poland, nor any 2500m points of land in Poland. But on the other hand, it is a mountain of Poland and it is over 2500m, even if that peak is in Slovakia. It's a weird situation. I won't necessarily oppose deletion though, since no one else seems to feel strongly about it. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that both points of view might be taken. Moreover, there is one eccentric who systematically loads stones into his backpack and carries them up to Rysy NW in hope of giving Poland a 2500s summit. He most probably won't succeed but it makes a funny anecdote. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Marcowy Człowiek: Hahaha! That's amazing. Thanks for making my morning. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll voice another vote of "meh", though I'll note that there have been some attempts to change the height to 2500m on enwiki. I'm unsure if those edits are correct, they are not explicitly sourced. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Surroundings

Propose deleting all "Surroundings" categories (list below). en:Surroundings defines surroundings as "the area around a given physical or geographical point or place". That means that, for example, Category:Surroundings of Schongau is for anything around the German city of Schongau. Not only is it probably not helpful to categorize by what something is near, but what are the criteria? How near does something need to be to be part of the "surroundings"?

In practice, these categories seem to be used in different ways.

• Category:Surroundings of Bagieniec manor house looks like it contains images of the land around the manor house.
• Category:Surroundings of the Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral in Sanok appears to have categories for parts of the cathedral as well as things that are near the cathedral.

As a result, the action needed if these categories are deleted may be different in different cases.

In short, I don't think the "surroundings" categories are or can be well enough defined to be useful here.

Here is the list of categories (In case it's of interest, I have left in the number of entries as of the time of this request):

Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Auntof6, this seems rather ambiguous and surely pretty arbitrary, atleast for cities. I could maybe imagine it (or some equivalent) for buildings, but maybe Category:Yards (land) fulfills that need? Certainly Category:Churchyards does for churches. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, if it's really in a yard that's part of the same property as the building. If a yard is part of the property of, for example, a cathedral and is on the cathedral grounds, I would usually include it in the the category for the cathedral. I suspect, though, that some of the stuff under surroundings of buildings is countryside that's in the vicinity of the building. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete To vague per nom. Maybe Category:Surroundings could be used as a "dumping ground" category as its likely that there will be a lot of key words that assign it, then they can be moved to better CATs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Delete seems to be a huge deletion task. Sidenotice: we also have Category:Surrounding (maybe not in the line with en:surrounding)--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Delete I literally teared up when I saw Category:Surroundings in the United Kingdom continue into Category:Environs of The United Kingdom and propagate forever... Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment something should be done; the category doesn't contain any files. What would the better category be? Maybe this should redirect to it or become a disambig page. Is there a closer fit than Category:Environment? Examples of meaningful contents specific to surroundings that aren't just dumping arbitrary things would be (and the cat could be made more specific/narrow with the cat description explaining it) media about surroundings of the Solar System or informative graphics about the flora or soils surrounding specific cities. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There seemed to be consensus here but the discussion went stale and no action was taken back then. Pinging Auntof6, Themightyquill, Crouch, Swale, Estopedist1 and Ruff tuff cream puff. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the discussion can be closed as delete given as noted its stale and consensus seems clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale and Alavense: Consensus is clear, but who wants to do the work of deleting these? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know as we probably can't move the files in Category:Surroundings of Golemo Babino to Category:Golemo Babino. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rear Admirals of India

Similar to the Category:Vice Admirals of India, this category creates confusion. I propose that this category be merged into Category:Admirals of India and then deleted. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there something about India that makes this category less valuable than the 5 other "Rear Admirals of Country X" categories in Category:Rear Admirals ? - Themightyquill (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would cause confusion. Rear Admiral is a specific rank. There appear to be sufficient files to support its own category. Images of an officer as a Rear Admiral belong here, and if they get promoted and an image is taken of them at the new rank, that image can be under the new rank category. Josh (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone has emptied this category in the meantime, however, en:Indian_Navy#Rank_structure shows that Rear Admiral, Vice Admiral, and Admiral are all distinct ranks in the Indian Navy, and therefore I believe they should be distinct categories here with the appropriate people sorted into them as long as there is media to populate that structure. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Classic men's clothing

What makes clothing "classic"? Most of these items weren't worn in classical antiquity. Redundant to Category:Formal clothing. Sandstein (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that classic is not a good word, but isn't there something to the idea of "Western formal clothing" that transcends borders but doesn't include all formal/ceremonial clothing from around the world? (e.g. Category:Black tie but not en:Category:Homongi) Maybe something to match en:Western dress codes or en:Category:History of clothing (Western fashion)? Category:Western formal clothing? I want to be careful not to end up with fancy versions of the items in Category:Western wear. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)