Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05

Category:Nations

After going through the Wikipedia articles related to nations, it becomes clear that the term "nation" is ambiguous and somewhat complicated. A nation could mean the people of a country or an ethnic group. Since specific categories exist for countries and ethnic groups, I don't think this category is necessary. It can be converted into a disambiguation page linking to Category:Countries, Category:Ethnic groups and Category:Nationalism. The category Category:National institutions is mainly concerned with countries and territories only, so it can be categorized under Category:Countries and territories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Some "nations" categories, like Category:Celtic nations and Category:Germanic nations, can be easily recategorized under Category:Cultural regions. Although I had created the Category:Chinese nation category, I have now found that the category is not feasible, as we can put the categories under Category:Han Chinese people, which is overcrowded with the categories of individuals. Those categories on individuals should be moved to Category:Han Chinese people by name. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The more I think about nations and ethnic groups, the more I confuse the two terms. However, when I research the Wikipedia articles on Nationalism and Types of nationalism, I realize that nations may or may not be ethnic groups. Still, all ethnic groups can be considered as nations in some way. We can create Category:Stateless nations for nations/ethnic groups without their own countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support @Sbb1413: I couldn't agree more. "Nations" is such a broad term and used for many disparate things, that so long as those things have more specific terms to refer to them (country, ethnic group, etc) your idea for a dab is spot on. Pretty much any large group of people which share a common and identifying element across them can be considered a 'nation'. It is right not to confuse this with countries, which are specific legal entities, though they can be formed around a specific nation. It doesn't help that in English, "national" serves essentially as the adjective form for both nation and country. Josh (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support I pointed out on the related discussion the issues arising with the gargantuan concept of sovereign state, which happened to engulf all the terms "nation", "country" and "sovereign state" itself. As I see it, stateless nations may bridge national realities between ethnic groups, categories such as Khoisan, and sovereign states. They are often cross-border national, historic communities. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Desembargadores estaduais from Goiás

De que se trata? 186.175.135.50 18:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Se trata de uma categoria de multimídias de desembargadores estaduais (juízes de segunda instância) do estado brasileiro de Goiás, visto que alguns assumiram o governo estadual ou possuem artigos próprios na Wikipédia lusófona. Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Debe ser en inglés!.. 186.175.135.50 22:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
O nome não possui variável na língua inglesa, portanto, não, não deve ser em inglês, bem como o de São Paulo, o da Argentina e o de Portugal não são. Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Chi Kung

User:SilverStar54 has proposed moving the category to Qigong to be more consistent with the pinyin. Most of the Wikipedia projects use the "qigong" name but since this would be about different romanization standards, this needs discussion before this would be moved. Abzeronow (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Could it be moved and have a desambiguation page with the different romanization standards? Oe show the different standards in the commons page?
Like: pinyin: Qìgōng; chinese simplified: 气功; chinês traditional: 氣功; Wade-Giles: ch'i4 kung1; japanese: kikō (気功?); tailand: ชี่กง TarcísioTS (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the category page stating the various ways it is written as you suggest. Abzeronow (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Technical note: Category:Qigong currently is a redirect to Category:Chi Kung. If the latter is moved, the redirect needs to be deleted and/or retargeted. --R'n'B (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rallying

rallying can refer to election rally etc. RZuo (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Agreed, but I think this name is fine as-is. You can add a {{Cat see also}} to alert and redirect those that may arrive there thinking it was something else. Josh (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Rallying&title=Special:MediaSearch
quite many photos of demonstrations. RZuo (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment The metacats and several subcats use the phrase "Rally racing", which is a less ambiguous term in my opinion. @RoyZuo and Joshbaumgartner: would you both be okay with this being renamed to "Rally racing" to match the subcats, and "Rallying" being converted to a disambiguation page? ReneeWrites (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
 Support rename to Category:Rally racing. Josh (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
That would be clearer. Rathfelder (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:Autonomous aircraft

As far as I know, many modern airplanes can fly autonomously using the so-called "autopilot" mode. So, I doubt whether a category for autonomous aircraft is useful. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

An autonomous aircraft is one both capable of and intended to fly on its own without human intervention. In aviation, there is no confusion between autonomous aircraft and automation on aircraft such as an autopilot. No airliner, for example, is intended to operate without any humans in the cockpit. While it is true that the systems on a modern Airbus or Boeing are capable of amazing levels of automation relieving the pilots of many flight tasks such as level keeping and so forth, none is capable of safely and reliably completing flights without pilots at the controls and so no, I would not say that 'modern airplanes can fly autonomously'. The word 'autonomous' itself maybe can be used for varying levels of automation in other settings, but in aviation it is clearly distinct from 'automated' systems such as autopilots. Josh (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Villages in (Macedonian municipal seat)

Duplicate categories. I propose to delete these or redirect them to Category:Villages in X Municipality:

--Upwinxp (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Some of the categories are duplicates because the town has only one municipality (e.g. Category:Villages in Berovo is a duplicate of Category:Villages in Berovo Municipality). However, there are towns that include more than one municipality (e.g. Category:Villages in Bitola is greater than Category:Villages in Bitola Municipality because it includes the villages in the municipalities of Mogila and Novaci, which are also categorised in Category:Villages in Mogila Municipality and Category:Villages in Novaci Municipality). I suppose Raso mk’s primary goal when creating the categories of the type ‘Villages in X’ was to provide a better overview of the villages belonging to different towns.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Kiril Simeonovski. I didn't know about towns existing as a separate administrative unit, larger than municipalities (save for Skopje). Do you think the categories should be kept? If the "town" borders overlap with municipal, we could also place the municipal categories inside the town ones. --Upwinxp (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Past

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History.

Merge it to Category:History. We generally don't maintain the distinction between past and history, and the Category:History category is already used for anything related to the past. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Keep History is the systematic study and documentation of the human past. The period of events before the invention of writing systems is considered prehistory. I didn't know the category does contain some categories I thought it wouldn't contain somewhere in its subcategories but that is despite this being inconsistent with definitions of "History". So even if it stays like that so that the category doesn't really match what "History" refers to, the Past category is complementary to it.
For example, Paleontology, Early Earth (not just geologically but e.g. relating to the origin of earthly life), and prehistory anthropology are all well in the scope of Past but not in the scope of History per its definition. Also history is kind of like narrative stories or chronicling but there's more to the past than that such as Interactive virtual past‎ where the past, not historical events are recreated. There's no good reason to merge this broader concept into the much narrower unfitting one into which a few unfitting categories have been crammed into. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
For further clarification and as noted at the Wikidata item:
Past and present
The issue is that "Past" here does not refer to 'one particular subdivision of time':
  1. it is one subdivision of time in that all time until the latest planck second is "past" from some perspective (what some people in this discussion seem to have thought this cat only refers to)
  2. it is also various subdivisions of time in that some times until some recent time is past depending on the scale...for example when talking about biological evolution "present" may refer to the current millennia or even larger time-scales or when plate tectonics is the subject 'the present' would refer to a quite long time-scale that includes many recent years – so for these subdivisions the meaning varies
  3. (largely related to the second point or sub-aspects of it:) there are different ways one can relate things to the past: for example History, Paleontology, Memory, Nostalgia – all of these are somehow linked to the human concept of "Past" (and like for other categories they can be found together as subcategories here which is appropriate, reasonable and useful)
In short, the misconception I think people had to some extent is that this category is only about #1 instead of all of these three. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
 Keep I was going to agree with deletion or merge, as just about everything on here is depicting the past. I am uploading pictures from my museum trip only a few days ago, but a few days ago is still the past. But we do have images that depict at least visions of the future, or illustrate the concepts of past, present, and future as divisions of time. Thus, I think that as a period of time, it makes sense, and since we also have its colleagues Category:Present and Category:Future, I think it is warranted to keep this category.
I do think it is ripe for mis-use, as a lot of broad concept categories are, and it will require regular patrolling to keep on point. Josh (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
If this category will be kept, can both categories (Past and History) get clear descriptions showing the difference? What kind of subjects should be in one and which in the other? JopkeB (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Delete Overly vague, can include everything from the Big Bang and earlier to 1 microsecond ago. I went through the category to see what could go into better categories, and wound up emptying this one. (About the only thing I was unsure of was Category:Nostalgia, but as it was already in Category:Time in life that seemed covered ok.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Well, an informative description would be good, agree with JopkeB on that. History has an infobox which defines it as "past events and their tracks or records" and also see the quote from the ENWP article which is the more accurate outlining and what most contents in the History cat relate to.
    • Your unilateral undiscussed mass removals are problematic and you should have discussed them here before. Many of these were problematic, for example you moved Category:Origins, which relates to past broadly, to Category:Prehistory but origins aren't only or characteristically about prehistory. I'll undo your problematic edits which are most of them while trying to keep things in subcats of this cat where possible.
    • Differences for example I think people conflate History (the study of humans' past and historical events) and Past (no focus on the study/education of it, not just historical events but also e.g. daily life and developments/trends more than in the context of History (discussion about the history cat).
    • Your point has been discussed earlier. You didn't even leave Time in life in the cat which isn't only about Past but also about other things so this point also doesn't make sense. You also didn't leave cats clearly referring to this particular concept Category:Videos of past, it shouldn't be removed from here until it is moved if it is and then some category above it needs to be in this cat. Instead of some of the files directly being in this cat, it probably would be better to have some cat they're in be located in here (like "History" containing "Paintings depicting life in the past" where the whole relation now is missing from this example), but you only removed things. Please change things more carefully or better discuss them here before since this is an ongoing discussion. Let's first discuss how to move or keep files and subcats or finalize this discussion which is mute if this cat does not contain contents.
    Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 Strong keep, it is obvious from the content that categories like "Past and present", "Artistic depictions of the past", "Nostalgia" and "Memory" are not fitting subcategories for "History" as the suggested merger implies. There is also the idea of "Prehistory" (!!) which describes the era further in the past than even "History". The argument that "Past" is vaguely defined is also not a reason for merging, as "History" is just as vaguely defined. At least "past" can be defined distinctly as anything not in the immediate present or in the future. By contrast, what is "History"? --Enyavar (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople who died as a result of playing sport

"Playing sport"?! Does a runner "play sport"? A high jumper? Is this American English? 200.39.139.17 21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. So everybody other than me thinks this a good title... 🧐 200.39.139.17 21:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Not much to do without a proposal to fix the issue (maybe with rationale for good measure). Josh (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
"Category:Sportspeople who died as a result of doing sports" maybe? (note: I'm not a native English speaker and am thus not 100% sure whether this suggestion would actually work or whether it should be "sport" or "sports" in case that the verb "doing" could be used here.) Alternatively, Category:Sportspeople who died as a result of engaging in sport activities (but that might be too broad and I'm also not sure whether the word "engage" would work in this context). Nakonana (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 Delete it's not commons category's job to document cause of death. RZuo (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. 200.39.139.17 16:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment There are categories such as Category:Dead people by manner of death and all it's sub-categories. Nakonana (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between manner of death and "people who died under this very specific circumstance" Trade (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@Trade but there are some very specific sub-categories, e.g. People killed by falling trees, Deaths from duelling, Deaths by horse-riding accident, Deaths from volcanic eruptions (scientists). If anything it is the people category (sportspeople) that is oddly specific, although, given the deaths of scientists by volcanic eruptions category, that level of speficificy might be actually fine too. There could be "People who died during sport activities" as a parent category which could include racing car accidents or flight show accidents. It is also known that soccer players have an increased risk of sudden death from heart failure during soccer matches (compared to the average risk of sudden heart failure in the general population), so a separate category for sport-related deaths might have some justification to exist. Nakonana (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Keep, the population and interwiki links show the usefulness. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    It has been some time now, but I really don't remember having opened a deletion request. So why do people say delete or keep? It's about finding a good title to this category. 200.39.139.17 16:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    Would "Sports-related deaths" do it or this time it would be criticized for including people who died at stadium tribune stampedes etc? 200.39.139.17 15:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by date by country

A request for comment relating to the sub-categorization of this tree has been posted at Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date, so please comment there. Josh (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Nezami

There is a disput between me and user Orijentolog about the categories in the Category:Nezami. User Orijentolog is adding disputed categories "Poets from Iran", "12th-century people of Iran" and "13th-century people of Iran", which is wrong as I think. As it can be seen in the top of these categories they are related to the modern country of Iran. In the talk page I realized that user Orijentolog mixed the means of these categories with country and cultural context. If these categories are related to the people lived within the modern borders of Iran, then they must be removed because Nizami did not live within the modern borders of Iran, he lived within the modern borders of Azerbaijan. If these categories are related to people who lived in the country called "Iran", then these categories again must be removed because Nizami lived in Seljuq Empire ruled by Turkic dynasty of the Atabegs of Azerbaijan. If these categories are related to all Persian language poets then these categories again must be removed because there is already a category "Persian-language poets" there, otherwise we should add country categories related to the main language to the categories about all poets, e.g. category "Poets from Azerbaijan" to the category about Azerbaijani poet Fuzuli. Interfase (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said, categories reflect the situation on all major Wiki projects where Nezami is categorized under Iran-related categories because it stands not only for modern country but also for historical cultural region. Medieval Iran, like Ancient Iran or Ancient Greece, spans wider than contemporary political borders and we can not categorize historical figures under modern countries. Your pseudohistorical claim that Nezami is an "Azerbaijani" poet shows your motive is of purely nationalistic nature. Attempts of Azerbaijanization of Nezami already failed on tens of Wiki projects, so you bring it here. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
On the talk page I showed that even Britannica says that Azerbaijan has given the world Nizami. But here we discuss the categories about Iran, not about Azerbaijan. Nizami was not from the counrty called "Iran". Nizami was not from the terriory that is located within the modern borders of Iran. So, the adding of categories "Poets from Iran", "12th-century people of Iran" and "13th-century people of Iran" here is not reasonable. I think that you are still mixing country/language/culture when say "Iranian" and do not realize what these categories stands for. That why I am not already interesting in your comments. Let's see what Commons comunity thinks. Interfase (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
More than ten years ago, in December 2013, you claimed Nezami "has nothing with Iran", using the same quotes from Britannica. Your claims have been rejected as a pseudohistory, so now you try it here. Because no major project accepted your historical negationism and the Baku's ongoing campaign. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
And to repeat once again, scholarly perspectives about the issue are pretty clear, that's why all Wiki projects categorize Nezami under Iran-related categories. The only exception is the Azerbaijani Wikipedia which follows the state propaganda. Your claims are no different. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
You are trying to take the discussion in a different direction. I repeat once again, no one here is trying to add the category “poets of Azerbaijan” to the category about Nizami, we are talking about controversial categories about poets and people of Iran, to which Nizami could not belong as I stated above. In English Wikipedia there are no such categories, only categories about "Iranian people" which are not the same. Iranian people are not equal to "people of Iran". Interfase (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
It's "controversial" only for you. Tons of subcats of People by century by country are interconnected with Wiki equivalents (despite "X-ian" vs. "from X" differences), and according your logic it's all "wrong". --Orijentolog (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
We don't discus tons of subcats, we discuss this particular category. If tons of categories are not in correct places, then they must be removed as well. Let's for now correct category about Nizami and remove these misleading categories. Interfase (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
You do discuss it because your claim imply there are thousands of wrong connections. And there's nothing misleading in this particular case. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If there is wrong connection, then we need to correct this wrong connection, not to mislead the readers and users of Commons. If we face with mistake we need to correct this mistake not apply it everywhere again and again. As I explained on a talk page and here categories with "of Iran" and "from Iran" are wrong in the category about Nizami Ganjavi because he was not from Iran. If he wrote his poems in Persian and considered as Persian poet or Iranian poet it does not mean that he is from Iran. Frank Sinatra is Italian. But we cannot place category "Vocalists from Italy" or "Actors from Italy" to the category about Frank Sinatra, despite the fact that the category "Italian-American vocalists" is located in the category "Vocalists from Italy". Why you continue to ignore this simple logic based on the common sense? Interfase (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Your claims are based on pseudohistorical interpretations, as you already proved on the major talk page. The world regards Nezami as an Iranian poet. Parallels with Sinatra are false analogy, historical cases like Herodotus are much more relevant. His categories will ultimately lead you to Greece, Iran and Turkey. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually it is you who proved on the major talk page that you are mixing territorial and cultural context in the term of "Iranian poet". You think that the "Iranian" is the same with "of Iran" or "from Iran", but this is false. Parallels with Sinatra are correct. You will not find "Vocalists from Italy" in category "Frank Sinatra" but you can find it in category "Italian-American vocalists" because Italian-American vocalists can be from Italy, but not all Italian-American vocalists were from Italy like Sinatra who was not from Italy but was Italian. The same thing with Herodotus: you will not find "Historians from Greece" in category "Herodotus" but you can find it in category "Ancient Greek historians" because Ancient Greek historians can be the historians from Greece, but not all "Ancient Greek historians" were from Greece like Herodotus. The same should be applied for Nizami. He was Persian language poet and was from Seljuq empire. We can find category "Iran" in he category about people from Seljuq empire because Seljuq empire was located mainly in the territory of Iran and people from Seljuq empire can be from Iran but not all people from Seljuq empire should be from Iran. Interfase (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Justiça do Trabalho do Brasil

Is this Brazilian language? Why not English? 200.39.139.16 15:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Per category naming policy, if this is the official name of the organization and they have no published or official English version, it is acceptable to leave the proper name in a non-English language. However, reviewing their official website reveals important details:
  1. In Portuguese, their name is styled as simply "Justiça do Trabalho", not "Justiça do Trabalho do Brasil". If were were to use their form in Portuguese, "do Brasil" should be dropped. If dab is needed, "(Brazil)" should be used.
  2. The official website does offer an English version, and there, the name is styled "Labor Court". Since this there is an English name provided on the official site, that should be used for the category name, probably warranting "(Brazil)" as a dab.
Thus, Rename category to Category:Labor Court (Brazil) in compliance with category naming policy Josh (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Court? 200.39.139.16 16:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Leave as is. For country specific entities that do not have existing/in use English language names, nothing wrong with keeping native language name rather than inventing a Wikimedia only parenthetical neologism. Name matches the article name in pt:w, the only wikipedia with an article about it. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    You mean Portuguese Wikipedia uses the Portuguese name? Interesting... 200.39.139.16 16:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Images from Christie's by Hans Baldung

makes no sense at all and only crowds the place, and then for 1 img. MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Not an image but a painting. 200.39.139.17 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Paintings are a kind of image. Josh (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This category name implies that "Christie's" is the name of the source from which these images were gathered, and that the original creator of the images was Hans Baldung. If that is what these 3 images are, then this seems a correct category to hold them in accordance with Commons category policies, so  Keep unless that isn't what these are. Josh (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Hans Baldung is a painter, worked in early XVth Century. Images bla bla can be used for Commons users who believe their photographs of works of master painters are more important than those paintings. 200.39.139.17 16:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pini

I do not know what this catergory is supposed to be about but it certainly has nothing to do with Toki pona. Should be discussed for potential deletion, clarification of the name, and categorization Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Alexander-von-Humboldt-Gymnasium

Ich schlage vor, den Klammerzusatz (Konstanz) anzufügen, denn wie man in Category:Schools named after Alexander von Humboldt sieht, gibt es sehr viele Schulen dieses Namens. Frupa (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support Ich denke, das wäre eine recht unkontroverse Umbenennung. Aber vielleicht sollte man sich auf eine Namensform einigen bzw. den Städtenamen-Zusatz vereinheitlichen; denn derzeit gibt es sowohl die Variante "Alexander von Humboldt Gymnasium Stadtname" als auch ""Alexander von Humboldt Gymnasium (Stadtname)". Ersteres impliziert, dass der Stadtname Teil des offiziellen Namens der Schule ist, was vermutlich anzuzweifeln ist. Nakonana (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Das ist eine simple Verschiebearbeit, da die Begründung eindeutig einleuchtend ist. Ich war so frei und habe die Kategorie verschoben. Msb (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Palestinian women

It's not really clear what the difference between this category and Category:Women of Palestine is. So does anyone care if it's up-merged? Or if the answer to that is no can someone at least say exactly how they are different? Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The adjective form is usually used for ethnic groups. E.g. Kalmyk people, who are an ethnic group of Mongolian origin that has been living in the European part of Russia for centuries and have their own federal state/republic within Russia - Category:Kalmykia -, but only 67% of Kalmykia's population are Kalmyks (the others are ethnic Russians, Germans, Chechens etc.). So, an ethnic Russian woman who was born and lives in Kalmykia would be a "Woman of Kalmykia", but she wouldn't be a "Kalmyk woman". That's the difference between the two categories. Now, I'm not familiar with the situation in Palestine. Is there a notable amount of "women of Palestine" who are not "Palestinian women"? If yes, then a separation of the two categories might make sense. If not, then "Palestinian women" could be kept as a redirect to "women of Palestine". Nakonana (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the subcategories of this one most, if not all, of them are for women who were born and live in Palestine. So they seem to be both "Palestinian women" and "women of Palestine." As oppossed to say a woman who was born and lives in the United States but happens to be of Palestinian ancestory, which I assume there's another category for altogether. So probably redirecting one is the best option. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Homeland

Ambiguous name, can be misused by uploaders to categorize their own homelands. No objections for Category:Homeland in art. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  • This category is for the generic meaning so its not too much of a problem if images of specific homelands end up in it however the name is ambiguous with other uses and there was w:Talk:Homeland#Requested move 26 June 2019 where there was a proposal to put the TV series at the base name thus it might be better to have this title as a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Paintings of penitent Saint Jerome

cat should better be called Paintings of Saint Jerome in the Desert, avoiding the imgs of him in his study to be tagged with this one (penitent as the general characterisation of him) MenkinAlRire (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Coat of arms of the Duchy of Milan (Before 1395)

There was no Duchy of Milan before 1395. It was created in 1395. These are the arms of the Visconti family, who before 1395 were "lords of Milan". The category seems intended for un-crowned Biscione Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Tribunais Regionais do Trabalho

Why not in English?! 200.39.139.16 14:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Porque se trata de tribunais brasileiros! Devem ser redigidos em português do Brasil Emerson Júnior GSF (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Per category naming policy, if this is the official name of the organization and they have no published or official English version, it is acceptable to leave the proper name in a non-English language.
However, reviewing their official website reveals that the official website does offer an English version, and there, the name is styled "Regional Labor Courts". Since this there is an English name provided on the official site, that should be used for the category name, probably warranting "(Brazil)" as a dab.
Thus, Rename category to Category:Regional Labor Courts (Brazil) in compliance with category naming policy Josh (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes. 200.39.139.16 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Ministers of Tribunal Superior do Trabalho

"Ministers of" is OK. 200.39.139.16 16:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Per category naming policy, if "Tribunal Superior do Trabalho" is the official name of the organization and they have no published or official English version, it is acceptable to leave the proper name in Portuguese.
However, reviewing their official website reveals that the official website does offer an English version, and there, the name is styled "Superior Labor Court". Since this there is an English name provided on the official site, that should be used for the category name, probably warranting "(Brazil)" as a dab.
Thus, Rename category to Category:Ministers of the Superior Labor Court (Brazil) in compliance with category naming policy Josh (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes. 200.39.139.16 16:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Different types of IFO (ufo identified)

Poorly named category at best. Seems to be a collection of 'things people thought were aliens' or 'things in the air people commonly misidentify as something more mysterious than they should be' or some such. Perhaps rename as Category:Aerial phenomena commonly presumed to be UFOs? I still don't think it makes for a good category, but its better than its current name. Delete and merge into Category:Atmospheric phenomena? Josh (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Delete or if not that then rename to "Aerial phenomena mistaken as UFOs" and only including files were that is actually the case or the files sufficiently relevant. The current cat contents are misleading and partly false: it suggests all those were mistaken as UFOs. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Different types of UFOs

Bad name, Rename category to Category:UFOs by type or Category:UFOs by shape. Josh (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

UFOs by shape. It could have a parent or parallel cat 'UFOs by type'. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted/3D artworks

No practicality to distinguish 3D artworks from other cases related to artistic works of Japan, as under the eyes of the Japanese law both 2D and 3D are just the same, artistic works. Therefore, all case pages should be reverted back to Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted. Category:Japanese FOP cases/deleted/literary works is not included as the literary works are not artistic works. Regarding concerns of potential category overcrowding, it is normal to have thousands of FoP deletion requests in a single category. See Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted and Category:United States FOP cases/deleted, for example, both also do not provide liberal FoP for non-architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For a similar proposal for the redundant Russian subcategory, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/03#Merger of case pages under Category:Russian FOP cases/deleted (non-architectural). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women's sumo

I think this should be merged with Category:Female sumo wrestlers but I am unsure about what policies apply here. That one is about the participants and this is about the act Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support for this merge. It is valid to maintain one cat for the sport and a second (sub-cat) for the participants, but only if we have images about the sport that are not depictions of the players. Here, both images are clearly images of Female sumo wrestlers. Josh (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bus routes by designation

Rename Category:Bus routes by designation to Category:Bus routes by number for consistency with both parent and sub categories. The vast majority of contents are named "Bus routes numbered XXX". There are a few named "Bus routes designated XXX" and these should be renamed from 'designated' to 'numbered' to match the rest of the category. Josh (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Some routes have designations, that aren't numbers. MB-one (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 Keep for the reason mentioned by MB-one --ManuelB701 (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Edit: On top of that, there also exists Category:Bus routes by letter which can be merged with this category. --ManuelB701 (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Facade of Palau de la Generalitat at Carrer del Bisbe (Barcelona)

Can we change "at" to "on" here? I don't think any native English speaker would say "at", and the alternative "in" is a bit odd in U.S. English when referring to a building (as against something actually on the surface of the street). I know "on" is acceptable here in U.S. English, and believe it is acceptable in UK English, though I'd appreciate if someone from the UK would weigh in on that. If it's unaccceptable in UK English, I could even live with the British "in", but "at" is simply wrong. Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Also affects Category:Relief of Saint George at carrer del Bisbe facade (Palau de la Generalitat), where I'd change "at" to "on the". I'd also capitalize "carrer" ("Carrer" instead). And on both categories, I'd be happy to see "facade" changed to "façade", but it's not a big issue to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Harmful sexual identities

Category:Sexual abuse and category:Paraphilias already exist 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Keep Not all paraphilias are tied to harmful acts (sexual abuse in this case). And those are two categories that can be summed up by one (the current one we are discussin). And the scope of this category is about sexual identities, subtype of Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities. Formerly, Category:Pedophilia was categorized in category:sexual identity and category:sexual violence, so this one merges both. MikutoH (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought about it for a while and decided it would better to keep the category, but change it’s name to "coercive paraphilias". Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities is about LGBT identities only, not sexual identities in general. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 13:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Not true, it contains sexual and gender identities that fall outside the scope of LGBTQ on their own, like Sapiosexual, fictosexual, superstraight and (arguably, though not IMO) Femboy Dronebogus (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I suppose the last one depends whether or not we care about the opinion of Tumblr and Twitter Trade (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
"Coercion" implies another person which by it's very definition excludes the inclusion of Necrophilia Trade (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 Keep valid overlap of two categories— sexual identity and sexual violence. I’m not sure about necrophilia but many pedophiles and zoophiles definitely see their paraphilias (paraphiliae?) as identities, and subcultures have developed around both. Dronebogus (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
(IMO) Calling a sexual identity "harmful" by itself is weird and informal, not to mention that it can lead to bad-faith edits of users adding controversial identities they don’t like personally. It would be nice to rename this category to "coercive paraphilias" to avoid such incidents. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 16:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with renaming. While for necrophilia, there's indeed "necrosexual", they even have some flags, though I agree that most necrophiles don't even identify as necro-anything. MikutoH (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know how to feel about that information Dronebogus (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 Keep if the cat is moved to a more accurate and/or objective name (otherwise  Delete) such as "Sexual orientations associated with harm", "Sexual preferences associated with coercion" or "Sexual orientations associated with coercion". Prototyperspective (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree with your opinion 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 16:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 Delete I don't think any of the categories in this category are really sexual identities. I'm not going to debate what harmful is or is not harmful, but it does seem ambiguous/lacking NPOV. In general I think this category is rife for misuse and POV pushing. William Graham (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Rename category to Category:Paraphilias associated with non-consent or similar. The current contents are all Paraphilias. The common thread appears to be that they all involve attraction to subjects which are incapable of consenting or possibly even expressing their non-consent. Josh (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Controversial sexual and gender identities 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 02:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:People wearing female clothing

Too Western-centric perspective to categorize clothing. See my more detailed rationale here: Template talk:People wearing clothing#Auto-categorization for "female clothing" category Nakonana (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Lean toward delete. Applying this is going to be really problematic not just because of the question of where the clothing is considered female but also because it can change over time. For example, silk stockings are now thought of as very female, but in the 18th Century they were not. Another example: in the U.S. pink was a specifically female color for a large part of the 20th Century, but before that it was not, and starting roughly in the 1970s it became acceptable for men's shirts (and at some later date shoes) but generally not for other male garments. Etc. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana, @Jmabel, why did you specifically nominate this category, doesn't it apply to all Category:Female clothing? I've added the CfD tag there as well as this is really about that category, not just this one sub of it. Josh (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I just used the "People wearing clothing"-template a lot recently and noticed that it was adding the "People wearing female clothing" category automatically that's why I nominated that one. The added category was usually a red link and I hardly ever bothered to create the corresponding category, so I just never arrived at the real parent category "Female clothing", I guess. So, it's nothing against your template in particular, just my laziness to track down the real parent category. Nakonana (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't make the nomination. I haven't any real problem with some clothing being labeled as "female": in many contexts many items of clothes clearly are gender-specific. But I think it is much more problematic when it gets into what someone is wearing, especially if it is being added by a template that cannot be aware of the context in which the clothes are worn. Is a woman in the 2020s not "wearing female clothing" if she has on a T-shirt? Is a man "wearing female clothing" if he dressed like Prince (who was eminently male, but wore a lot of clothing more traditionally thought of as female)? - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree. A wedding dress can be "female clothing", but the second it is worn by a man it turns into "male clothing", so to speak. Such a dress would probably also need to be adjusted to the size and the body frame of a male body and therefore wouldn't be exactly a dress that is designed for women. Nakonana (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana Wait, no, that's incorrect. A piece of female clothing, if we can determine it to be such (say a wedding dress made for a woman to wear, using the example above), is still a piece of female clothing no matter who happens to be donning it at the moment. Let's be very clear, the adjective 'female' is applied to the clothing, and means that the clothing is designed/intended for a female to wear. However, should a man put on that wedding dress we are talking about it doesn't change the design intent, so it doesn't change to being a 'male dress'. Josh (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
But what if the dress design was changed to fit a male body? A blouse is just a dress shirt (or whatever the male version is called in English) that is fitted to a woman's body. So, if a dress shirt fitted to a female body is considered "female clothing", then wouldn't a wedding dress that is fitted to a male body be considered "male clothing" accordingly? And the perspective of a wedding dress being "female clothing" by default is again a Western-centric perspective. I mean, is the guy in this photo wearing a "wedding dress" or...? And do we agree that this wedding dress is "male clothing"? Nakonana (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana: Answers to your questions:
  1. If a piece of clothing is designed with a specific gender in mind, it is fair to categorize it as such, so a dress specifically designed to fit a male body could be considered a 'male' dress.
  2. No clothing should be considered anything 'by default', that is poor categorization. It should only be categorized by known qualities. If it is not known if the the clothing covered by a topic is female, male or otherwise, it should not be categorized by gender. Since Wedding dresses can be designed for any gender, Category:Wedding dresses should not be categorized by gender.
  3. I know nothing about the design or anything else about the dress in the image you linked, so I would not categorize it by any gender, female, male, or otherwise.
Does that answer your questions? Josh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel I don't agree with you on that. If we determine whether clothing is male or female just based on who is wearing it, then it is meaningless to ascribe gender to the clothing at all and we might as well delete the whole male/female clothing scheme completely. If the T-shirt you speak of is designed for female use (sizing, fit, marketing, etc.) to the point we can call it a female t-shirt, then it is always a female t-shirt, same with a male one. If it is a unisex design, then it should never be gendered, regardless of who is wearing it. As for Prince's outfit, if it was made for him, then it is male clothing, and it is irrelevant if someone thinks its effeminate or whatever...likewise, if it is an article made for a woman, but he dons it, it is still female clothing. Josh (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

to the point we can call it a female t-shirt

The question is really whether we can do that. In the US, pink and magenta shirts or jackets for kids are usually exclusively for girls. But in Scandinavian countries it is not too uncommon for boys to wear such items in such colors. And children's clothing is also quite unisex in its size and fit. It might get tricky to determine for whom an item was created. I'm not saying that there aren't some rather obvious cases, but there are also cases where it can get complicated. Nakonana (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana: Why would it be tricky? If I design a shirt and say it is for women or girls, then it is a female shirt. What is tricky about that? It doesn't matter what color it is (and you are wrong, there is nothing female about pink or magenta shirts in the US) or what the size and fit looks like. It is not up to us to determine this, the design/intended gender is either known and can be used for categorization, or it is unknown and the item cannot be categorized accurately by gender. In what case does it get complicated? Josh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner

If I design a shirt and say it is for women or girls, then it is a female shirt.

It's tricky because there may be a culture that uses the same design of shirts but labels them as "male shirts". If we then have a photo of the shirt displayed on a table (not worn by a person), we won't know whether it should be put in the "female shirt" or "male shirt" category. Just like with skirts - they may be for women in the US, but they are (also) for men in Scotland. You can't tell whether a depicted tartan skirt is a skirt for women or for men, unless it's worn by a person.
None of that is relevant to my statement. It doesn't matter who if anyone is wearing it, and it has absolutely nothing to do with culture or what country it is in. It also has no relevance to tartan skirts or whatever. Josh (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine this, the design/intended gender is either known and can be used for categorization, or it is unknown and the item cannot be categorized accurately by gender.

In most cases we won't know. How would you know that a woman wearing a lumberjack shirt is wearing a lumberjack shirt intended for women rather than wearing her boyfriend's lumberjack shirt? Or what are "boyfriend jeans"? Are they jeans for women that look like male jeans? Or are they the jeans of a women's boyfriend and thus male clothing? And if it's the former, then can we even consider them "female clothing" if they are intentionally designed like male clothing? And what about the design of "neckties" makes them particularly "Men's clothing", of which they are a sub-category? (Category:Men's clothing > Category:Classic men's clothing > Category:Neckties). Due to this category tree, the Category:Female humans wearing neckties is a sub-category of "Men's clothing". Are the neckties these female humans are wearing explicitly designed/intended for men or how do we justify this category's inclusion in the "Men's clothing" category instead of the "Women's clothing" category? Sure, they are "classically" (or historically speaking) men's clothing. But so are trousers. However, for some reason, we're not putting trousers in "Men's clothing". The lines of what's clothing for one gender, but not for the other, are blurry these days. You can design/intend a shirt for female humans, but male humans might just decide that they want to wear that shirt, too, just like women did with trousers. And it's questionable whether the shirt will still be classified and seen as "female shirt" even if you intended it to be "female". Nakonana (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana: What is your point? I said if we can't determine it, don't categorize by gender. You even quoted that part of my comment. Are you disagreeing with it? I'm legitimately not sure where you are going here. See what I said about bikinis below or wedding dresses above. Now you bring up neckties, are you just going to keep picking new examples, or actually discuss the ones already brought up? Josh (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Josh I'm agreeing with you that we shouldn't categorize by gender unless we are certain. My point is that in most cases we can't be certain, because other cultures (without our knowledge) might categorize the same item differently than we do (e.g. skirts) and/or because with time the categorization of an item changes (e.g. trousers going from "male" clothing to "unisex" clothing). The categorization would be prone to error (as this whole discussion demonstrates and what prompted this discussion to begin with). And the demonstration of error-proneness could be continued with examples like neckties: why have they been determined to be "male" clothing instead of "unisex" clothing like trousers? You asked

In what case does it get complicated?

My answer is: possibly in all cases. Nakonana (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
But I'm actually OK with closing this category discussion now that skirts and dresses have been moved out of female clothing. Neckties can be addressed at another time if need be. (And I'm wondering whether Category:Men wearing bikini bottoms should be turned into a redirect to Category:Men wearing swim briefs, because I'm only seeing a single photo that actually looks like an obvious bikini bottom rather than a swim brief.) Nakonana (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
 Question @Nakonana: Why is this a "Western"-centric issue? The idea of certain clothing being intended for, designed for, sized for, culturally accepted being worn by, and/or is more generally expected to be worn by a particular gender is common to most cultures on the planet past and present, isn't it? Maybe there are some cultures which completely lack gendering in their clothing, but it is a pretty small group, so I just wonder why you would think this is a specifically 'Western' issue (whatever 'Western' refers to). Josh (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The way the category currently looks like is Western-centric (North American / Europen). I was going off of "dresses" and "skirts" being categorized as "female" clothing. Those two types of clothing might be categorized differently from an Asian-centric perspective for example. Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana I think we all are in agreement that neither dresses nor skirts as a whole should be categorized as gendered (female, male, or otherwise), and that goes for American as well as other perspectives. Josh (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
That we can agree on and I'm happy with that conclusion :) Nakonana (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Question @Jmabel: Something like silk stockings is a broad type of clothing that can certainly come in varieties with different genders (or no gender) associated with them. I agree with you that categorizing general types of clothing by gender is very problematic. However, there are certainly more specific clothing which are undeniably associated with a particular gender. I'm thinking of particular styles or products that are specific to a given time/place/culture and very much are gender-specific in that scope. My question is, how do we categorize that if we delete gendered clothing categories, or should we just not worry about it and no longer do categorization along those lines? Josh (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: It's possible that this is a salvageable category, and that would be fine. But look at Category:Men wearing skirts, which is currently categorized under this. I would say at a glance that 30-40% of the images in that category are not people wearing female clothing. Are you interested in taking the time to sort this out? I'd have no problem with that. - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Men wearing skirts does not belong under female clothing because "skirts" is too broad a class of clothing to determine that all "skirts" are intended for female humans to wear, and more technically, because Category:Skirts is not a sub-category of Category:Female clothing. It didn't take much time to fix this mis-categorization. In fact it was already fixed before your comment, so I'm assuming you were viewing a cached version of the page or working from memory. Josh (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Let's take another case. File:Before 2013 Solstice Parade 068 (9139827592).jpg (which I took) is in Category:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is in Category:Male humans wearing female clothing, which is in turn in Category:People wearing female clothing. But is it really that? The Sisters' habits could not be mistaken for anything else. The reference they make to the habits of Catholic and Anglican nuns is clear, but certainly no actual Catholic and Anglican nun ever dressed like that: only the overwhelmingly male or male-identified Sisters.
Or File:Bikram Yoga - with Bikram Choudhury - Flickr - tiarescott.jpg: in Category:Men wearing bikini bottoms, which traces up through Category:Male humans wearing bikini bottoms to Category:Male humans wearing female clothing to Category:People wearing female clothing. But, really, when I look at that picture, nothing in it suggests to me a man wearing female clothing, just a man very minimally clothed to hide his genitals and (presumably) anus.
Again: I'm not saying this category area certainly couldn't be cleaned up and maybe made useful (though I have my doubts), just that right now it's a mess. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I guess it might be doable if a human would manually add this category on a case by case basis. So, if the "Category:People wearing female clothing" would be just a sub-category of "People wearing clothing" and wouldn't have any broad sub-categories of its own that classify certain types of clothing (such as dresses, bikinis etc.) as "female" by default. Instead, the category would only contain files that were manually tagged as "people wearing female clothing". This might help to ensure that the category really only contains files where someone is wearing clothing that was clearly not intended for them. Maybe something like the following would qualify for that category: File:Japan, Tokyo, young boy in his mother’s shoes 1.jpg and File:Japan, Tokyo, young boy in his mother’s shoes 2.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
What exactly is the issue with calling bikinis female clothing? Trade (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
If it includes the top, I suppose there is no culture where it is at all commonly male, but a man wearing a skimpy bottom in the bikini style is not necessarily "wearing female clothing." - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Especially since the "bi" part in "bikini" implies that it's a two-piece. Nakonana (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nakonana: not exactly on topic, but does it? I've always presumed it was a reference to the nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel yeah after double-checking it looks like you are right. It's just a coincidence that there's a "bi-" in bikini. However, people are certainly working of this association with the number "two", as the terms Monokini and Trikini demonstrate. Nakonana (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed with Jmabel (talk · contribs) that a bikini is not necessarily 'female', even if that is a strongly predominant presumption. I don't see a need to keep Category:Bikinis under Category:Female clothing. Josh (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
tldr
we do need Category:Female clothing as a generic reception category for all kinds of clothing users would perceive as female. not everyone is a fashion expert and can pinpoint what clothing is shown on a file.
i think it makes sense to not categorise specific clothing categories as male/female, as that depends on culture, time in history, etc. RZuo (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)


  •  Delete The things that have already been brought up ad nauseum by other people aside, this whole thing gets kind of weird and nonsensical the further into it you go. For instance Category:People wearing black female clothing just sounds wrong for some reason. Maybe because of the whole "black female" thing, but also because no one IRL talks about clothing that way. I don't know. The whole category structure for images of clothing in general is way to in the weeds to be useful. Getting rid of this category would at least help with it a little. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:General de división shoulder straps

What is the purpose of this category? Sinigh (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cosplay by year by work

There is little usefulness in categorizing cospaly by year by work. Categorizing by character and country is already enough Trade (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Disney characters by year of introduction

Is this category really necessary? Trade (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Pedestrians by district

Look at the Category tree downwards please. 176 categories invented for one foolish file! 186.173.5.168 23:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"176 categories invented for one foolish file"? Strange fantasy of an anonymous guest.RG72 (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Vil·la romana de l'avinguda de la Catedral

How is the one photo in this category any more about the Vil·la romana than any other photo in Category:Hotel Colón Barcelona? Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest checking the one photo in the record for the remains of this villa in the heritage register of Barcelona. The building in the place of the villa is the only thing visible.
I must admit that it seems weird to illustrate the remains of an ancient Roman villa with a photograph of a modern building, but a lot of sources about archaeological sites are illustrated by the photograph of how the site looks nowadays, and that is often just an empty field, an orchard or a modern building. That image doesn't look odd compared with those. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
However, since the (potential) content of the category is the same as Category:Hotel Colón Barcelona, deleting or merging it is also reasonable.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories should have at least reasonably clear criteria for membership. It seems to me that unless we have or expect to have specifically archaeological photos of this site, we basically have two categories here for the same thing, and should merge them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
No objection.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Sergei Majskij

Alumni of Ural State University? 186.174.244.237 11:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:The sun during the solar eclipse of 2017 August 21

IMO not necessary to have a category call the sun during the solar eclipse of <date>, as most of the images is related to the eclipsed sun, which seems to be redundant A1Cafel (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Venues of the Major League Rugby

This seems oddly named. Do people really say the Major League Rugby? Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It is odd, and I haven't heard it in common parlance. When I created it, it was called "Major League Rugby stadiums". I'd recommend that it be renamed to "Venues of Major League Rugby" if that naming convention is more suitable. Brianreading (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)