is there a better title for this? It currently includes large regions like whole countries (/large territories and polities). It's linked to the Wikidata item "geographic location" and the WP article reads like the biggest places are smaller than the biggest things contained here (even whole continents). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The topic of this category is the Halaib triangle, a region that is claimed by both Sudan and Egypt; and de facto under Egyptian control. Unlike the parent category Halaib Triangle, this is a political category (POV) created for the purpose of further cementing Egyptian claims. In my opinion, Commons should not take an overly political stance in this conflict, especially not by dividing content into "Egyptian" and "Sudanese" in the category names. What needs to be done?
No subcategories with a name that includes "Egyptian".
I'm fine with categories like Bishareain in Egypt as long as the media is specific to modern Egypt-controlled areas including Halaib. Localizing the subcategry Bija sword dance as exclusively Egyptian, however? I have doubts. Media that cannot be exactly localized and that concerns Beja people in general, should fall under Beja people, as this nomadic group apparently travelled as far as Chad. (Similar concerns with the Ababda people.)
I think that all maps in the category that actually focus on the Hala'ib area/dispute, should be moved into Maps of Halaib Triangle. Maps that simply show Egypt, do not belong into Halaib categories.
We need to come to an agreement if we spell "Halaib" or "Halayeb", as we should have one category for this lemma. The other one would then be a redirect. En-WP says the name is "Halaib", but if local spelling advises "Halayeb"? Per our proper-name guidelines that would be fine with me.
We also need to come to an agreement over the name of the northernmost town of the area, as we have currently the categories Shalateen (more content, following en-WP spelling of the lemma) and Shalatin (alternate spelling in en-WP). Again, keep one and redirect the other. Enyavar (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Is this category about a particular educational facility, or about "school" in a broader sense of style? -- Themightyquill (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Does it matter? What would change, for each interpretation? If there is no conflict here (i.e. we'd do the same things, and treat this the same, whichever the definition) then we don't need to exclude either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Well, a particular facility should be categorized by location and other specific information, for instance. Should Category:Cavallerizza (Brescia) be a subcategory or not? The creator Eponimm hasn't contributed to commons since 2024, so we can probably just decide what's most useful. If it's the broader sense of style, we have at least one parallel at Category:Equestrian art in Portugal. -- Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Name of the province is being discussed and if it is not changed we should replace Ō with O in the title Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Name of the province is being discussed and if it is not changed we should replace Ō with O in the title Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Name of the province is being discussed and if it is not changed we should replace Ō with O in the title Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Name of the province is being discussed and if it is not changed we should replace Ō with O in the title Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Name of the province is being discussed and if it is not changed we should replace Ō with O in the title Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Name of the province is being discussed and if it is not changed we should replace Ō with O in the title Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
What is category supposed to mean? We have "Exterior of the Reichstag (building)" and "Interior of the Reichstag (building)". I guess that's enough. The floor plans should have it's own "Floor plans of the Reichstag (building)" Carl Ha (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Should this be moved to Category:Resistance training equipment or should anything else be done? The file on the right for example isn't using weights per se for the resistance training. Urbourbo first asked about this. There's also other potential solutions other than keeping things as they are. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Agree. As mentioned to Prototypeperspective, I believe that although there is a lot of confusion out there, I believe that most practitioners would agree weight training (and other modalities like flywheel or resistance bands etc) are parts of resistance or strength training, which is in turn part (along with cardiovascular training) of physical exercise. Hence, an alternative solution here could also be to keep a weight training category, but make it a subcategory to resistance training. Happy to discuss though if there are opposing views!
Weight training is often casually equaled to strength training just because it's been the dominating form of training for the objective of improving strength. However, as anyone with insight in the field knows, using weights is not the only way of improving strength.
I have a slight COI in this matter in relation to Exxentric, hence I don't want to go ahead and implement anything on my own. /Urbourbo (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I would move to strength training equipment, also consider removing category in favor of diffusing under exercise equipment. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Does it need to categorize every single "highest point" of subnational regions? Although there are only three categories in Category:Highest points of States and Union Territories of India, theoretically the number could be 36, as there are 28 states and 8 union territories in India. Of course, not all states and territories have mountains, so the actual number of categories can be low. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 13:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
What's the difference between this category and Category:MAN NL 202 even? The naming is quite awkward too given that this has a "(2)" which is both a useless identifier and quite unprofessional too and I've also seen pictures used on both categories (e.g. the Wikidata image uses one from this category). ManuelB701 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The difference is visible in the window line, which is specially easy to see from the offside (without the doors). The older NL 202 has a completely straight window line, while the "(2)" has as kink before the rear wheels. I have now moved all that were in the wrong category. I can understand that it was difficult to tell them apart when there were so many photos in the wrong category.
I agree that the naming is awkward, but I don't like to invent new naming, so I guess I just copied what they used on German wiki. My only suggestion to a different naming would be to use the associated VIN codes instead. Then the old NL 202 would become "MAN NL 202 (895)", while the "(2)" would become "MAN NL 202 (A10)". (But then I guess we would need to explain to viewers that 895 and A10 are only VIN codes and don't have any other specific meaning.) Bergenga (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Seems reasonable, though my one thought otherwise is that (unlike others in the "kept" category) there is no ruling on the merits here. - Jmabel! talk 17:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Rename request: to Category:Algerian stamp-related deletion requests. This should apply to its subcategories too, as well as all other countries listed under Category:Stamp-related deletion requests by country. Per Grammarhow, "You should include a hyphen before "related" when you use the word to modify a noun. That noun will come directly after the hyphenated form to help. You do not need to include a hyphen before "related" when there is no modified noun in the sentence."
Due to the immense number of subcategories, I cannot move them all. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 02:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Gnangarra suggested videos like the one on the right would not fit here as these arent Automibile cameras, some just happen to use a vehicle as the platfom to move them through time & space and Those videos were not created using a dash cam, they were filmed using a DLSR camera(Pentax K1) on a tripode inside the car for the earlier ones. For the more recent one it wasnt a dash cam either these were done by building a mount on the roof of my car for a weather proof camera. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
There are a number of things that need clarity, points 1 and maybe 2 can be considered as atype automobile cameras;
Dashcams which are on board cameras specifically designed to record driving, most of these are just mounted to the windscreen some with a rear facing camera these run of auxillary power from the vehicle.
There now some EV cars with additional cameras mounted like a Tesla which has multiple around the vehicle which fitted as part of the vehicle.
what I do is using a car as type of Camera dolly which is a moving stable platform. With this we dont categorise videos taken using a tripod, gimbol, or steadycam rig either. I use an action camera with different mounts while I havent done any recording yet I have a body harness, a hat harness, selfie stick, a tripod for this camera depending on what I want to video there is also the option to put it on drones. It makes no sense for this one camera to be considered an automobile or Dashcam. Gnangarra 13:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
The cat is not about the camera but about the video. Videos taken within/on cars are of a particular type. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
This is the issue, what is an Automobile Camera and how we structure the category because there is a difference between an Automobile camera, and camera being used in an automobile. The later has reduced value as a categorisation because it is a very broad base, is it even relevant to the video, can all videos be clearly idenified and defined? Then this triggers the questions does this include bicycles, skate boards or just electric varients. finally how we structure all of this together. Gnangarra 07:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
subcategorizing by image file-type does not make sense except for SVG Prototyperspective (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
¿Por qué tiene sentido para SVG, y no para otros formatos de imagen? Un cordial saludo: Raimundo Pastor (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Because SVGs can be translated with the texts being embedded in the same file (one can switch between the language with a dropdown). They also have some further technical advantages. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Auxiliary bishops in Ukraine to avoid giving the impression that Ukraine is a single diocese. Is also a mixture of Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Nearly all of the images under the subcategories do not show the 2021 shrine. Those show the smaller St. Vincent Ferrer Church located in the same administrative village (Culis) as that of the 2021 shrine. The church merely used this smaller church as the temporary diocesan memorial shrine for St. John Paul II, until the completion of a permanent shrine in 2021. See this. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 04:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
in the Commons category naming scheme, "Animations" generally refers to animated GIF files while "Animated videos" (main cat) refers to animations and videos are not considered animations. Thus probably as far as I can see either the cat should be renamed and some files be moved out or lots of files be moved to Category:Videos of satellite pictures. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Some images depicting this bridge were erroneously categorized as Severn Bridge. Trying to fix that, I created the category under its proper name, Prince of Wales Bridge (Severn).
I was curious why the category for such a large bridge did not exist yet, and now found that the bridge was renamed in 2018. en-WP followed suit in the same month: move edit
So:
Keep under the provisional name that the SSC had from 1996-2018?
Move all content to the new proper name, PoWB?
Make a cut and keep all 1996-2018 content under the provisional name, but move all content since July 2018 to the new name?
Best regards, Enyavar (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Do everyone common write Litre as ℓ in English? it is inconvenience to input. eien20 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
When I created two of the categories I noticed this strange naming, but I wanted to get work done and therefore just copied it. That „ℓ“ would be a special character for liter is not said so in en:L#ℓ. As it's also Commons default naming scheme I moved the categories to using ml and left a category redirect on the linked pages.
@Eien20: If you think those pages should be deleted, you can nominate them for speedy deletion or tell me and I'll delete them.
is there any benefit in having cats as specific as this but at the same time super incomplete; even parent cat Category:Transport statistics charts is still (and especially until today) very incomplete. Prototyperspective (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The wikidata infobox defines cartoons as "illustration telling a comic or satirical story in a single image". Is that how we are using this category for single-image cartoons like this one? -- Themightyquill (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
please don't create categories without populating them; this causes more harm/disadvantages than potential usefulness; either upmerge or populate it Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
"Say Hello to Blackjack" was never formally dedicated to the public domain. It is still a copyrighted work; the translated webpage states, "Redistribution is not permitted for copies or data made by the book itself or a third party." This is clearly invoking some limits on its use per copyright. It is more fitting to describe it as copyrighted free use, which is a category in itself. Thus, this category should be deleted and the image re-assigned. Canned Frootloops (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
This category does not appear to serve any purpose as a distinct category. The one photograph included that claimed to have depicted the Black Guards was actually a photo of the Red Guards. The vast majority of the photographs included are from Kropotkin's funeral and have nothing to do with the Black Guard formations. The only military-related image included is of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine, not the Black Guards. As none of the images in this category appear to be relevant to the actual subject of the category, and short of any relevant images to upload, I think this category could safely be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I usually don't create categories if there's only one photo, so there may have been more files in this category at some point. But don't ask me where they went, or whether I made a exception regarding the category creation despite there only being one file in it. Nakonana (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Ah pardon, I misread, you didn't say that there's only one. Nakonana (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
What kind of category is this? Upmerge. Zoupan (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, upmerge wouldn't be contentious issue to me, but it is created to make a distinction between eras in the history of the country (modern v. medieval, etc.) - hopefully, this also answers the "what kind of category is this(?)" question. Santasa99 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Awkward category name, upmerge and categorize properly in any of the present categories. Zoupan (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
135 maps, which are mostly unsourced, have nothing to do with the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina but are primarily regional or concern neighboring countries, should not be pushed under the category of historical / history maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thus clog a category with myriad of unsourced maps with variety of scops and uncertain reliability that should primarily contain only maps from the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I cannot speak about the argument about the "awkward" name and what constitutes a "proper" categorization. Santasa99 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Upmerge, all categories exist in the parent category. Zoupan (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Upmerge wouldn't be contentious issue for me, but I find that removal of per family subs from the parent would be better solution. Santasa99 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
upmerge to Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia Brands – most of files on Commons and in these cats are graphics and this misses lots of files in these branches with no reason to separate them out Prototyperspective (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Nonsensical category made by a sock of Judgefloro (talk·contribs). The photos show different spots in two different cities. Wikimedia Commons-wise, it is illogical. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions) 09:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Correct Cat name should be "Category:Or 2 bars azure" Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
There’s no need for so many steps to change a category’s name: there’s no need to create a new category and have the old one deleted, you just need to rename the category, which keeps the sort keys and existing categorizations.
And then there’s Cat-a-Lot for moving files/subcategories.
@Kontributor 2K: You have not addressed the main point: is it better to have "Category:Or two bars azure" or "Category:Or 2 bars azure"? I think the standard form is to use numbers not words. These were categories set up by me incorrectly a few years ago (I think in a previous discussion you criticised me for the names). I was trying to correct them, yet you reverted them all to the previous incorrect name. Which do you prefer? Numbers or letters? and which is the standard form? ThanksLobsterthermidor (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
If I'd create a category today I'd use a number, but it's not that important to me. What I think of is the global structure and presentation -i.e. clarity- on which some work has been done, then I think I actually have addressed the main point: to change the name of a category, there's no need to create a new category and have the old one deleted, then recategorize the new category, possibly (if not always) omitting the sort keys and some categories; you just need to rename the category, which keeps the sort keys and existing categorizations. Everything else, “two” or “2”, is then incidental. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@Kontributor 2K: OK, so you are happy for the category to be renamed "2" not "two" (or are indifferent), so now I will re-do the work I just did which took me one hour. Maybe it would be better next time instead of reverting another user's work post-by-post in real time if you sent that user a message and had a discussion about the matter worrying you?
If the category using "two" is wrong, surely it needs to be deleted? There is not point keeping it, as another user might use it, which we don't want to happen. It surely adds to the complexity of the cat structure to have a whole lot of obsolete cats floating about unused with complicated redirect tags. Better to get rid of the offending category entirely and start again, don't you think?. It was a category I myself set up, in error, so I feel responsible to correct it. Sorry if I deleted a sort key, I will try to be more careful on that matter next time, it's not really a major issue having a sort key for a sparsely populated category. Internal sorting of cats becomes important when there are 20 or 30 members. I don't think I omitted any categories, unless they were duplications. Not sure what you mean by that. You may feel your way is a better way of changing a category name, but the other way works also. Surely it is up to the user which way he wants to do it, so long as the end result is the same. So before I resume I want to be clear as to whether I have your agreement to move all images to cats named "2" and not "two"? ThanksLobsterthermidor (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I've pinged you while requesting G2 deletion request of "Category:Or 2 bars azure".
“Once this redirect is deleted, Category:Or two bars azure just can be renamed to "Or 2 bars azure" & the files in it moved via Cat-a-lot gadget”. It's as simple, much faster, and preserves categorisations and sort keys, + as a file mover you may move the category “without leaving a redirect”. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I'll add that the habit of leaving a category with the number-in-words as a subcategory of the newly-created number-in-number equivalent -example- is what can be called at least a wrong approach. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
OK I will see how that works out, I was unaware of that facility, thanks. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
This category has an identical scope to Category:Anarcho-capitalist flags, so I propose they be merged. Prefer use of the full word, rather than the abbreviation as the merge target. Grnrchst (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no relationship between the entities other than the fact that they partially share a common name. This is not sufficiently defining to merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
1945 births is an objective fact that assists navigation and is foreseeable as something that is likely to be searched. Collections of random things that have the most specious connection is not the same thing at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Nome e data são fatos igualmente objetivos. Não é porque um deles é algo numérico e o outro não é, que apenas um seria "fato objetivo". Luan (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete also for the other CfDs per nom. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete There is no relationshipbetween the entities categorized other than having a partial common name. Such a random list does not assist navigation and is not sufficiently defining a merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete There is no relationshipbetween the entities categorized other than having a partial common name. Such a random list does not assist navigation and is not sufficiently defining a merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete There is no relationshipbetween the entities categorized other than having a partial common name. Such a random list does not assist navigation and is not sufficiently defining a merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
The event did not take place. Parliament remained in session continuously for the whole of 2025 so there are no photographs that can be included. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
A number of pictures with file name starting with 'PM' are uploaded, claiming copy right by the uploader Paul Hermans (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
user talk pages are not categorized into the commons categories and this is missing most of them anyway; delete and merge rest to the parent cats and Category:Wikimedia talk pages? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Usertalkpage automatically added category Category:User talk pages; I've edited the template, so that it wouldn't add the category. I also removed all user talk pages from the category. Now, I think this category can exist for some screenshots or templates. Deltaspace42 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
This category feels like a duplication of Category:Historic house museums in Minnesota. No other US state has a "Houses converted to museums in [state]" category, nor any other country for that matter. Eco84 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this concern. There is a key distinction between these categories. The main difference is whether the house itself is the focus of interpretation. A Historic House Museum is a property recognized and interpreted for its own significance - such as being the home of a notable individual, the site of an important event, or an example of a particular architectural style. While all Historic House Museums are houses converted into museums, not all houses converted to museums are interpreted for their own historical or architectural significance. Some simply serve as venues to display unrelated collections, like toasters, with the building chosen out of convenience rather than for its own story.
That said, this distinction works well for many other building types, such as government and religious buildings, which are often reused as museums without interpreting their original function. When I began adding entries to the "Houses converted to museums in Minnesota" category, most houses had at least some interpretation of their history or significance, even if minor. There are exceptions like the Edina Historical Society Museum and the Wadena County Historical Society Museum, but these are rare. It might make more sense to note the inverse "Houses that are museums but not Historic House Museums" but that approach is awkward.
Minnesota has many categories of museum buildings that do not exist for other states, and I've tried to categorize them not just by use, but also by type. When I started, there wasn't even a category for County Historical Societies. Much work had been done on the Commons for art and national museums, but little else. While most of my categorization efforts have succeeded, "Category:Houses converted to museums in Minnesota" has been less successful. I had been hoping to come up with a solution but it may just be better to remove "Houses converted to museums in Minnesota" and leave it at that.
Neutral on whether this is worth keeping, but if it is then Category:Historic house museums in Minnesota should be a subcat, and nothing in that cat needs to be explicitly in this cat. - Jmabel! talk 23:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
please don't create categories without sufficiently populating them; this contains just 1 subcat – upmerge to Category:Warning systemsPrototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. I have now filled the category with existing early-warning systems categories. vip (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks but you only added 3 additional subcats. That's a) not all subcats even at the top level and b) none of the other files. People going to the cat will find a severely incomplete cat where they're better shown the Warning systems cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, I still disagree. For me, the categorization is perfectly fine right now. vip (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Lots of most files are missing and apparently you went through even just the top-level parent cat so sloppily to miss Category:Videos of early-warning systems. Please simply don't create new categories if they are super incomplete, leaving all the work to others to fix and lots of users to land on misleading pages that aren't useful as they miss most files. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
these cats should not be in Category:Energy by country I think but instead at most linked as see also; the other files there are about energy production & use; random photos of fires are outside scope there Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no relationship between the entities other than the fact that they partially share a common name. This is not sufficiently defining to merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no relationship between the entities other than the fact that they partially share a common name. This is not sufficiently defining to merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no relationship between the entities other than the fact that they partially share a common name. This is not sufficiently defining to merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no relationship between the entities other than the fact that they partially share a common name. This is not sufficiently defining to merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete but please create one CfD and then just add the template to the other cats instead of filing a dozen or so CfDs. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete there is no relationship between the entities other than the fact that they partially share a common name. This is not sufficiently defining to merit a category. If the above categories are deleted, then this becomes redundant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete There is no relationshipbetween the entities categorized other than having a partial common name. Such a random list does not assist navigation and is not sufficiently defining a merit a category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
1. does it make sense to categorize sunsets by year? (maybe separate out very old/black and white ones if that's a reason) 2. these miss most files -> best to delete/merge probably Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep I don't know. But you can discuss each category of Category:Natural phenomena by year. IMO is does not make sense to discuss a specific category. This one is only in addition of Category:Sunsets by year to complete the list of categories of this kind. --XRay💬 12:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Well the other cases would be good to discuss as well. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I do feel it’s important to clarify something. I don’t think the categories discussed here are wrong; each one contains sunrises from the respective years. The purpose may not be obvious to everyone, but it is not wrong. (And it doesn’t matter that the categories also contain my photos.) Deleting a single category from Category:Natural phenomena by year results in an incompleteness and directly encourages the creation of new corresponding categories. On top of that, the counterpart Category:Sunsets by year isn’t even taken into account. In that respect, an inconsistency is predictable—and I certainly don’t welcome inconsistencies. This discussion takes time, but even if a decision is made to delete it, it won’t come to an end. Unfortunately, all “by year” categories repeatedly lead to discussions—without any meaningful outcome. This is an unnecessary waste of time. For this reason, I will not participate further in this discussion. -- XRay💬 16:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep I see no reasons for deletion. May be someone uses this cats to search images (like me). More categories, more chances to find an image. Regards. Юрий Д.К. 13:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
If you see no reason then let me restate or clarify:
it does not contain most files that would belong into it and as such is misleading
partly due to the above but also in general it's not useful to browse sunrises by year or to categorize them that way
At least point (1) applies to a great many categories. Should they all be deleted as well? That doesn't seem sensible to me. There's nothing really wrong with this category. -- XRay💬 14:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Many or at least a substantial number of them probably. This probably warrants broader discussion. I've explained two things that are wrong here. You didn't address that browsing photos of sunrises by year doesn't make much sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Please forgive me if I respond in a somewhat more direct style—it’s not meant personally: I think it’s up to me to decide what I address and what I don’t, right? And whether there really is anything “wrong” here is your point of view. I don’t see anything “wrong” here. But what I do see is yet another discussion that will likely remain unresolved for months—if not years. There’s no deadline set, the discussion is only taking place among a very small group of people, and when users visit the category, the first thing they see is the discussion notice. From a user’s perspective, I find that rather off-putting. -- XRay💬 15:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Did I say anything else. It's not just my point of view, I made a concrete rational point which are free to address or not. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
You have every right to make suggestions. That’s part of our collaborative effort. Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait and see how the discussion plays out. -- XRay💬 15:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I imagine I’d search for all natural phenomena from the year 2025 and look under the Category:Natural phenomena in 2025 category. I think it makes perfect sense to find sunrises and sunsets there as well. -- XRay💬 14:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm fully agree with XRay here. If a category doesn't contains most files that would belong to it, so no reasons to delete it. Really, a huge number of files on Commons contains only 1-2 cats, i.e. severery undercategorized. Physically, this cat has no difference between, say, Category:March 2026 in California and Category:Donald Trump in March 2026. Regards. Юрий Д.К. 14:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone that discussions should be closed no sooner than two weeks after they begin. See also Commons:Categories for discussion. (Unfortunately) no end date is specified, nor is there a recommendation. My preference would be for this discussion to end after four weeks at the latest and then be closed accordingly based on the outcome. In my view, a clear vote is necessary for this. Otherwise, the template should simply be removed again. -- XRay💬 15:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep The question for me is what differences between the years are. I think it is mostly the (available) image quality. I tend to keep it, because through this, it can also be analyzed how the images were taken over time. Sunsets are an extreme example of brightness contrast. Back then, many cameras had no HDR function, today's cameras have it manually, and smartphones mostly automatically. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
This is a good concrete point. Thinking about it a while, why not have categories about that directly though instead of this roundabout and proxy way? Also a shaky image taken in the 2020 with an old smartphone can be worse than one taken with a high-end camera in the 1980s. So instead, it would make more sense to categorize by such quality-factors and technical criteria which is about that more directly. Current categories include Category:Black and white photographs of sunrises, Category:Quality images of sunrises and one can also filter by size/resolution. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Delete (this and sunsets etc), not useful, superfluous and makes no sense. Sunrises and sunsets are the same every day every year. It may be useful for some natural phenomena that do not repeat every year or are different every year, but not for everything, especially in this case. There is a difference, for example, in categories like Category:Some politicians by year, where categorizing by date can add useful information (not always either) and not in other elements (like sunsets, birds, etc) where the date is not relevant at all. --Joanbanjo (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Please specify more precisely which of the 57,504 “by year” categories you mean by “etc.” -- XRay💬 06:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello! There are too many to specify (maybe that's a problem). I was referring to categories similar to the one we are discussing where the by year element does not contribute anything or is not meaningful. Joanbanjo (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
I think there are major issues here that warrant either discussion or discussion+deletion. e.g. it misses most health hazards that are threats to life and whether abortion threats the right to life is contested/controversial. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Biased and not useful for navigation. Omphalographer (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete very subjective. Currently it includes four categories: abortion, death penalty, euthanasia and war. Placing euthanasia or abortion here implies it's a "threat to life" and therefore "bad", like war. It simply invites unnecessary arguments and, as Omphalographer said, provides zero aid for navigation. Deltaspace42 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep move it back. By actress people generally understand sth else. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge per nom. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
.png)
