Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/2024/07

I added {{Speedy}} as it's empty. Category for the person is now at Category:Antonín Mityska. You may want to correct the filenames to, see Commons:File renaming. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why French?! 186.173.75.147 02:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to English per COM:Language policy, "Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category is in French because I am used to putting my categories in French. But I will change it to English. Kod B (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the new category Category:Zouleiha Abzetta Dabonné at the preparation center for the Paris 2024 Games

I'm listening. Kod B (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The applouses? 186.173.121.194 15:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester did not exist in the 18th century Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So true. Will amend accordingly. Ardfern (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the CFD of United States in the 16th century (direct link). I had proposed to nuke that category for the same reason. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester was created in 1974 Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ardfern (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the CFD of United States in the 16th century (direct link). I had proposed to nuke that category for the same reason. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete as author request, tagged as such. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Требуется удалить эту категорию как неактуальную и ошибочную Well-read MountainMan (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete by author‘’s request. - Kareyac (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! my typo Kareyac (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal required, my mistake Well-read MountainMan (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removal required, there is an older category Category:Old Shenik village Well-read MountainMan (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: category was deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete per COM:C2. CFD is unnecessary. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above, unused orphan category -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete per COM:C2. CFD is unnecessary for this case. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: You created this category yourself and soon after you apparently wanted to delete it. Please do not nominate such categories for discussion, but ask for Speedy deletion by using Template:Speedydelete. JopkeB (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know there was such a template. But it says it is going to be deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal required, my mistake Well-read MountainMan (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty, prompt creator request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deletion required, my mistake Well-read MountainMan (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty, prompt creator request. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Category - moved all photos to United States photographs taken on 2016-07-03 Mjrmtg (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, can be deleted. JopkeB (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously needs to be removed. Acabashi (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above, empty, apparently malformed attempt to create a photo date category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created and unlikely to be populated due to incorrect English Sjö (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete - empty categories can be speedily deleted; no need to take it to CFD. Omphalographer (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally moved from Category:Penile-vaginal intercourse in art. I suggest reverting to that clear title. Alternative distant second choice would be something like "Works of art depicting penile-vaginal intercourse" which at least would clarify that it is not the penile-vaginal intercourse itself that is rated as a work of art. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a separate CfD from the one you already raised on the same issue? Wouldn't it be best to keep the discussion in on cohesive place? Josh (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, this is the only CfD I've raised for this category move. If there was already another one, I did not see it. Link please? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you really want to handle this one differently than Category:Works of art of women smoking (activity)? Josh (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I act obtusely, it is not deliberate. I was simply calling out what seemed to me badly misnamed categories when I noticed them. The other three seemed a related set, this did not - though I presume you mean to point out that they both share the phrase "Works of art of". That is an interesting observation, and perhaps there should be more discussion of changing categories from the format "X in art" to "Works of art of X" - or if there has already been discussion on that matter I would appreciate a link to it. Returning to the more narrow subject of this particular category name: Please review my original listing above for avoiding apparent obtuseness, or allow me to expand on the point more explicitly: I can easily imagine young lovers after particularly satisfying sex remarking to each other "That was a work of art!". Who are non-participants to second guess their judgement? That is why I offer the alternative formulation "Works of art depicting penile-vaginal intercourse". Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice @Joshbaumgartner: moved the category back to previous title "Penile-vaginal intercourse in art". If there are no objections, I think this means this CfD can be closed. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Infrogmation Yep, I am revert remaining cases of 'works of art of' to 'in art'. I will have it done shortly. Josh (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	already done
Participants	Infrogmation (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eigentumer,ehemaliges,,armeegelende 2003:F3:970F:7100:508D:51AC:4269:F15D 14:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose to do with this category? Josh (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: (= former army area), nothing to do. --Achim55 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removal request, not relevant category Well-read MountainMan (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:G7. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 09:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as "Files from Senado Federal Flickr stream", then renamed to "Photographs by the Federal Senate of Brazil".

I'd renamed it to Category:Photographs_by_Agência Senado. Photographs of Category:Agência Senado are not necessarily about the "Federal_Senate_of_Brazil" (or Category:Senado Federal do Brasil). Enhancing999 (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it. It will take a while for the bot to complete the move. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Completed on 31 July 2024.

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete per COM:C2. CFD is unnecessary for this case. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category had been at "Smoking women in art" since 2010. (Alternative formulation "Women smoking in art" IMO would have been equally ok.) @Joshbaumgartner: unilaterally moved it to "Works of art of women smoking (activity)", as far as I can see without discussion. Very awkward, counter-intuitive name that does not improve usefulness. I suggesting reverting to previous name. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also related cats: Category:Works of art of men smoking (activity), Category:Works of art of adult humans smoking (activity) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment there are a number of CfDs that go into the category fixes going on there. There was a CfD regarding standardizing the arts and related sub-categories, including works of art, to clarify whether a category is about the arts at large, or specifically works. Next, there was a CfD covering the standard terms to use for people of different age and gender combinations (changing things like 'adults' to 'adult humans', etc.) Next, there was a CfD regarding the standard formatting for people doing activities, settled on the activity following the actor in verb form. And of course, the basic Universality Principle has to be applied, so the same term for smoking should be used from the parent category down through the hierarchy. Taken together it makes for a pretty substantial rework in category naming and organization on a particular area such as this where all of those conclusions all come together in one place, so I understand the question, but yes, this is all based on previous conclusions. Josh (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been other relevant discussion, please link. I'm sorry, the new category name seems exceptionally awkward and unnatural in English and I don't see how this is specifically warranted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Infrogmation. "in art" has been our normal way to do this for probably tens of thousands of categories for roughly two decades. Changing something like that should not be done by one person or even a handful of people without notification somewhere like COM:VP that such a discussion is taking place. - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Infrogmation and Jmabel: I prefer short and clear category names, even if that conflicts with a Commons principle. Perhaps we should look at the (grand)parent which causes this conflict and rename it (which is it? Because Category:Works of art of adult humans smoking (activity) does not have any valid parent category at all). JopkeB (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Jmabel: That excuse just doesn't hold water. This was a discussion that involved several users with a lot of discussion over the course of multiple years. As a regular CfD participant, you had every opportunity to participate and to solicit further participation by promoting it. Choosing not to participate or promote it only to complain later about not being notified just doesn't hold up--you aren't new to this. Josh (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: No, I am not particularly a "regular CfD participant" and was completely unaware of that discussion. I probably see about 5% of CfDs, usually because either they are about a category I created or because there was a notification to a page of someone whose user talk page I monitor, usually either because we have had significant interaction in the past or because there is a pending question I am waiting for them to answer.

I stand by my statement that closing a stale discussion with seven participants and no clear consensus is not a good way to make a decision affecting thousands of categories.

But beyond that: there is exactly one (tangential) mention of the "in art" construction anywhere in that CfD, and it's not even parallel to the case here: if we were to follow the example of changing Category:Facing forward in art to Category:Facing forward in art works, then the category being discussed here would become Category:Women smoking in art works, not Category:Works of art of women smoking. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps you are also unaware that this particular issue has also been resolved, see below, and we are moving forward. I miss lots of CfDs too, I don't whine about not being told about them. Josh (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Village pump#Works of art of men smoking (activity) --JopkeB (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Can you provide links to the CFD(s) that had decided to use "works of art" instead of "in art"? While I do support many of your initiatives, I don't like renaming "[topic] in art" to "works of art of [topic]" per above. Although I have also moved some "activity people" categories to "people activity", I have kept the "activity people in art" categories as they are. Even though there was a CFD regarding this topic, we can re-discuss the topic to find the new consensus on artwork categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Sure... you can readily find it at Category talk:Art. The bulk of the discussion was probably before you became a regular CfD participant, so you might not have seen it. It seems like we may stick with 'in art', which I think is fine without violating the spirit of that conclusion, so I'll amend that CfD conclusion with a note to that effect once this closes. Josh (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link to Category talk:Art. However I do not see the phrase "Works of art of" in that page at all, much less any proposal nor agreement to move all "X in art" categories to "Works of art of X". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Agree It should've been "Women smoking in art" (or "Smoking women in art"). The current subcategories for smoking are all incredibly cumbersome. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support "women smoking in art" because (1) it follows the consistent "people activity" pattern, (2) it uses the orthodox "in art" naming, and (3) "(activity)" is unnecessary if "people smoking" clearly refers to an activity. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are some separate things coming together, so to summarize:

• Works of art: It sounds like there is a pretty good consensus to keep 'in art' vs. 'works of art of' as a construction, so I agree with that. Let's keep things at 'in art' going forward.
• Adult/Female/Male: There doesn't seem to be any problem with this, so we should keep implementing this going forward.
• Activity verb location: Some users seem used to some categories being in "doing people" format, but not any real problem with consistently adopting a "people doing" format, so we can keep implementing that going forward.
• (activity) dab: There seems to be some legitimate question about whether smoking requires this appelation. I suggest a specific CfD on this question for this topic to determine if it is really required, the result of which will of course be reflected here.

Josh (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Smoking (activity) for a discussion about dropping the '(activity)' dab as unnecessary. Josh (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have reverted all cases of "works of art of X" to "X in art" as it appears there is no controversy on that point, so might as well get it done. If there is a better way to do it that we agree on in the future, I'll gladly implement that consensus. Josh (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that decision. Can this discussion now be closed and leave the "(activity)" additive to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Smoking (activity)? Or is there something else still to discuss here? JopkeB (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Discussion was limited to the phrase "in works of art", consensus was quickly reached that the phrase "in art" is preferred. Categories have been renamed and media has been moved.
Participants	Infrogmation (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) Jmabel (talk · contribs) JopkeB (talk · contribs) Sbb1413 (talk · contribs) ReneeWrites (talk · contribs)
Notes	Discusson pertaining to the hatnote for "Smoking (activity)" continues here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Smoking (activity)
Closed by	ReneeWrites (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removal required, category not relevant Well-read MountainMan (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty, prompt request by creator. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removal request, not relevant category Well-read MountainMan (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty, prompt request by creator. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removal request, not relevant category Well-read MountainMan (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty, prompt request by creator. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move Category:Palácio do Itamaraty back to Category:Palácio do Itamaraty (Rio de Janeiro). It's being mixed-up with Category:Itamaraty Palace.

Also, I'd move Category:Itamaraty Palace to Category:Itamaraty Palace (Brasília). I noticed it was clearer at the beginning as it was at Category:Palácio do Itamaraty, Brasília.

A few subcategories would need to be adjusted too. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally  Support. But why one category name in Portuguese and the other in English? MB-one (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No strong preference about that, it's the current state. I don't mind changing both to Portuguese. For Brasilia we have File:Brasília - Palácio do Itamaraty 22.jpg for the name. Not sure what's available for Rio. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved them, now at:

• Category:Palácio do Itamaraty (Rio de Janeiro)
• Category:Itamaraty Palace (Brasília)

with dabs at Itamaraty Palace, Palácio do Itamaraty and Palácio Itamaraty. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

empty: there are no photo of this club taken in 1936, maybe it is a translation error as 1936 is part of the squad name ZandDev (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty. -- Túrelio (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a copy by accident, it can safely be deleted Ogidya (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge with "Category:Diving in the German Democratic Republic" as that is the correct spelling and this page is redundant because of that. Thanks in advance. 78.152.240.245 22:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Redirected. --Achim55 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by mistake, Original creator request Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 23:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnanaranjan Sahu You could just add {{Speedy}} to this one and all others you nominated for discussion. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will do that. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 12:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:G7. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category only has a single file and is overly specific, per Commons:Categories#Simplicity principle. Nosferattus (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, move only file up category tree. Unneeded granularity not helpful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to move to Category:HDI maps, losing the term "location. Reason: these are not what is known in Commons as "location maps". Enyavar (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Move Makes sense. However, abbreviations in the cat title are generally discouraged and not used so I think it would be better if spelled out. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so move to Category:Human Development Index maps ? Sure. The subcategories are (in my opinion) okay to leave as they are, because the parent category spells it out already. --Enyavar (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks --Enyavar (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Flags of cities of Indonesia Baqotun0023 (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could just copy the notice from Flags of regencies and cities of Indonesia. Deletion of one or the other flag needs to be discussed in the DRs. If nothing is left, the category can be speedy deleted as empty. In the meantime, I think this can be closed. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is nothing to more to do, I'm closing this. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Is my translation in English correct? Is it an independant country, or is it part of Turkey? Where is it located? JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no reference to such a republic. Muslim Cretans had abandoned the island by 1909. Laurel Lodged (talk)
  • Thanks @Laurel Lodged: , for your research. I'll wait a couple of weeks to see whether there are other opinions. --JopkeB (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is now an empty category, so it can be deleted anyway. --JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Ask for deletion  Done
Participants	Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs)
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{NoFoP-Italy}} Mazbel (Talk) 23:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a copyright problem with the images then they need to be nominated for deletion and this will be deleted as empty. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment {{FoP-category}} can be added to the category header for categories likely to attract FoP problems, but @Crouch, Swale is correct, DR is way to handle the files that are a problem. Josh (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, thee are two chapels in Agel, each category should have own name. Kareyac (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty.-- Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common surname. Make this a DAB page or it will be filled with people. 191.125.23.230 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Its a DAB on En and even Es. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if surnames would be an issue, but we already have Category:Aliaga, Nueva Ecija. Enhancing999 (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Enhancing999 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-> Category:Russkoye Slovo, only title without "newspaper" word -- Tomasina (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Томасина: Are you proposing Rename category to Category:Rousskoe slovo ? I see no issue with that. Josh (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Category:Newspaper "Rousskoe slovo" is wrong and empty and should be deleted. Right one is Category:Russkoye Slovo and already exist. The names of Russian topics are usually written as rus but not rous. Please, see also Category:Newspapers of the Russian Empire by name "R" for comparing: Russkiy Sever‎, Russkiye Vedomosti‎ and so on. -- Tomasina (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this just be Category:Cinzano advertisements? Why the parentheses? Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support renaming; standardize. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed. -- CptViraj (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blank cat Sriveenkat (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete per COM:C2. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would C2 apply here? Maybe you misread it. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category is "empty and is obviously unusable, unlikely to be ever meaningfully used". It is rather impossible to find free images of Karisma Kapoor in 2011. This might be the reason of the nom's nomination. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's impossible. Nothing really obvious if you look at Category:Karisma Kapoor by year. Time to create the one for 2024. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep it's not "obviously unusable" as there are categories for every other year in the decade. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No 2011 files for the subject right now; can be re-created or restored in future if files become available. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Chorlton Park (ward). There is an actual park called Chorlton Park, with quite a few photoes Rathfelder (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support and create a category for the park its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed. @Rathfelder and Crouch, Swale: Can you please handle the creation? Thanks :) -- CptViraj (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out the current name of the building.

At ptwiki this was moved again away from "Nereu Ramos" in 2021 (comment there). It had been moved there in 2016.

• "Agência Senado" uses "Palácio do Congresso Nacional" (2024).
• Local signage has "Palácio do Congresso Nacional" (2014), also a local map (2023).

Enhancing999 (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it. The bot should complete the move in a while. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People walking. There are no sports files here (if they are added, they should move to Category:People walking in sports), so all files are walking as physical exercise, but People walking as a whole is already in Physical exercises already, so this is redundant. Josh (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner People also walk to go to their destinations, which does not necessarily count as physical exercises. If a coolie carries some load from one end of a railway station to another, he is not exercising. Rather, he is transporting the load from one end to another. See Category:Pedestrian transport. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I understand that but I'm speaking functionally per the hierarchy. Semantically, you may be approaching exercise as being something exclusively done for fitness or such, but that's an artificially limited scope. Regardless of the end reason the person has for walking, the walking itself does constitute exercise, even if fitness may not strictly be the primary purpose of doing it. As a practical matter, even if we did want to parse walking by the primary end goal of the person, most files we have are impossible to ascertain that with any reasonable accuracy. Thus I would still support upmerging. Josh (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Then I agree with the merge proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Not only is it usually impossible to ascertain whether a person in a photo is walking for "exercise or sports" or not, but their purpose isn't relevant to the potential use of a photo either. (The child categories could use some cleanup too; many of the categorized images like File:Algae-5313, Dingle Peninsula, Co. Kerry, Ireland.jpg don't have any "walking people" immediately visible in the image - just little specks in the background.) Omphalographer (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Upmerge
Participants	Sbb1413 (talk · contribs) Omphalographer (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Josh (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of this category are all categories for people who may (or may not) have been involved in controversies, not media about those controversies. A parallel discussion on enwiki concluded that articles on people should not be categorized under "controversies"; the same logic applies here to the categories. --Omphalographer (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should hold files or subcategories about specific controversies. If there aren't any it can be deleted as empty. The subcategories about persons shouldn't be in there. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. It's a list of pages that were edited by the user who created the category, and it seems unnecessary. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is to expand the idea to a large extent to the point of including people who have a large number of categories in a system of arranging and organizing them as an ascending ladder arranged and organized for ease of reading and browsing and to make Wikipedia easy to classify Knowing that all of this takes me a long and painful time but the goal is to spread knowledge. Maryam AlAkini (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, the user who created the category was globally locked. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete if the user wasn't locked, I'd have suggested to copy it as a list to their user namespace. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the title to English. 200.39.139.16 15:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose it's an official name and as such unique. Changing the category title would require additional qualifiers like "of Brazil" or similar. MB-one (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you will make similar categories for China in Chinese, and for Egypt in Arabic script?! 200.39.139.16 16:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change policies, you should join the discussion here: Commons talk:Categories. This CfD isn't the right place for that. MB-one (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose There is no requirement to create new English language names for specific local things with clear local names. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A-ha! 200.39.139.16 16:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Kept as it is per above. --Achim55 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal required, my mistake Well-read MountainMan (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete by creator‘’s request. - Kareyac (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: per nom. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of Category:Nikolay Mikhailovsky Robby (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: redirected. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, and the subcategories are also empty Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: per nom. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, and the subcategories are also empty Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: categories are now populated. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 03:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category, since none of the two files listed in this category are related to the Danish attack in Hooghly. The first one shows a painting of the former Dutch (not Danish) colony of Chinsurah near Hooghly, while the second one shows former Danish settlements in India and Indonesia. The second one does not even show Serampore (a former Danish colony), let alone Hooghly. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recat the files and speedy this as an unused category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty.-- Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Monarchs in Ethiopia and Monarchs of Ethiopia? If monarchs in Ethiopia is for the monarchs of certain territories of Ethiopia and Monarchs of Ethiopia is for the monarchs of the kingdom of Ethiopia, then the name Monarchs of India is inaccurate, since there was no kingdom named "India". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you assessed "Monarchs in Ethiopia" correctly. That there are some other categories in Commons that might not be ideal doesn't really matter. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Not useful; all subcategories seem to belong in "Monarchs of Ethiopia". ("Of" "in" and "from" have specific meanings and should not be assumed to be interchangeable! If we had free licensed images of, say, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom visiting Ethiopia, she would be a "Monarch in Ethiopia". The category does not contain any examples of monarchs from elsewhere photographed in Ethiopia.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as empty.-- Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between People associated with Glasgow and People of Glasgow? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly nothing useful. Another case where someone was probably too focused on ontology rather than navigation. Up-merge. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are separate categories on Wikipedia but maybe they should also be merged? Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What little content there was was moved to Category:People of Glasgow, category was deleted after ReneeWrites (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; SCP-055’s gimmick is being indescribable so it makes no sense to have a category in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly not round Trade (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parent cat should be “not round things” Dronebogus (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since SCP-055 is indescribable how do we know the category really is empty? Trade (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the same we know (or think we know, to some finite extent) if the category has really been deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty category, no evident usefulness -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category for an archaic term for Motor vehicles. If you wanna categorize every instances of the word "motocycle", then it should be moved to Motocycle (text). Otherwise, it is an unnecessary duplicate of Motor vehicles and it can be confused with Motorcycles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is being proposed here? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media recategorized; category deleted. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused. Hullian111 (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe File:EH 14-03-1970 by HY crop web.jpg? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. (No opposition to undeletion or recreation should we get usable free licensed media for the person some time in the future.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If AparnaBalan.jpg is deleted. This cat will be empty Sriveenkat (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is this? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Male sportspeople. Basically a duplicate category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Male sportspeople. I agree with the opinion above - the usual category is a duplicate.

Miikul (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably didn't create this category exactly, I created it because I saw a red link in the files. I agree with the above, it should be merged. Best, Gadir (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you allow an outsider to throw a question on your discussion table? I think when you say "sportspeople" it doesn't only include athletes but also referees, managers, trainers, et al. Does Commons have a concept/category that is exclusive for the people who participate directly at a sports activity like Category:Rugby players, Category:Tennis players that contain all "players" but leave outside their coaches, managers, trainers...?

Good point, actually the category "Male sportspeople" is linked to the Wikidata item and Wikipedia article of "athlete" so a new subcat would need to be created if all also are sportspeople or the category be renamed. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Category:Male sportspeople -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this category only for animals? Where should images about agility for people be categorized? For instance: toys to improve agility for children, The EN-WP article is not only for animals. JopkeB (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to be wrong at Wikidata. Nothing to do with the category itself. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The parent categories are also about animals. JopkeB (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you'd need to move to Category:Animal agility or similar and make this a new parent to that. Then fix at Wikidata (or hope somebody does).

OTH the concept may be too abstract for some and shouldn't be a category in Commons (see Category:Mathematics_in_medicine).

Still, this seems fairly uncontroversial, so I'd suggest you go ahead and try to sort it out. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Enhancing999. Now we can go further. I do not think this concept is too abstract for being a category in Commons. JopkeB (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. This category should be about all living creatures, not only about animals.
2. We should create new categories Category:Animal agility and Category:Human agility.
   1. Category:Agility should be the parent of both, but its parent categories should be adjusted.
   2. The two current subcategories should be moved to Category:Animal agility.
   3. The current gallery page Agility should be adjusted: either rename it to Animal agility or add images about human agility.
   4. The current gallery page Hindernislauf should have Category:Animal agility as a parent instead of Category:Agility.
3. The Wikidata item should be adjusted. Make sure the links to the Wikipedias are/stay correct(ly).

@Enhancing999: Do you agree? --JopkeB (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB and Enhancing999:  Oppose the binary division between animals and humans, since humans are often classified as animals, especially in biology. See the CFD of Category:Animal eyes. I think we need more discussion on the animal-human distinction before creating Category:Animal agility. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my CFD on Category:Animals (direct link). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. We'll continue this discussion after the one about animals has been closed. JopkeB (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interwiki/infobox needs to be sorted out in any case. The infobox seems to be about a competition for dogs. Maybe the infobox/interwikis can be using Category:Dog agility (which is also about the competition).

The part about humans seems to be a bit theoretic anyways, as there aren't any files. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the Wikidata Infobox needs review. I would like to do that when the results of the discussion about Animals are known: it is possible that Animals will become the main category and Humans will be just a subcategory and then we might keep it here. So my advice is to be patient.

No, I do have at least two files about tools for humans (File:Matten13.jpg and File:Brinquedo 20201031 102212.jpg), but I am sure I can find more, also about humans in action with agility. So it is not theoretic. JopkeB (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the infobox and parent categories. Maybe it needs updating depending on where the sidetrack goes. Please don't ping me any more for this discussion. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Animals has been closed, we can continue this discussion. The outcome of that discussion is:

• Non-taxonomic categories about animals (like birds and mammals) should be categorized under Category:Animals.
• Humans should be excluded in the definition of Category:Mammals and are a direct subcategory of Category:Organisms by common name, just like Animals and Plants; so they are sibblings, equals.

My conclusion: The outcome of that discussion does not change a thing for this discussion. So we can implement the proposal.

 Question @Sbb1413: Do you agree?

--JopkeB (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections to the proposal anymore in nearly three weeks, I implement it. --JopkeB (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved without objection
Actions	See "Conclusions so far + proposal"  Done
Participants	Enhancing999 (talk · contribs) Sbb1413 (talk · contribs)
Notes	Gallery page Agility has been renamed to Dog agility because it is only about dogs. Gallery page Hindernislauf had only one file, so I requested a deletion for it. I found more categories for Category:Human agility
Closed by	JopkeB (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although this category covers all types of self-propelled vehicles, the subcategories take a more restrictive meaning of self-propelled road vehicles. In fact, Wikipedia defines a motor vehicle as a "self-propelled land vehicle, commonly wheeled, that does not operate on rails (such as trains or trams) and is used for the transportation of people or cargo". If so, the categories like Category:Motorized land vehicles and Category:Motorized road vehicles are redundant. For other vehicles with engines/motors, we can use categories like Category:Self-propelled vehicles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Category:Motor-powered paddle-wheel boats‎, Category:Motorboats and Category:Motor-powered ships‎ be subcategories (and maybe more of Category:Watercraft by motive power? JopkeB (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn discussion, as I don't want to restrict the term to land vehicles anymore. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current stages of human life should be updated to be consistent with the Wikipedia definitions. The current stages are the following:

• Children (0 to 18 years)
  • Babies (0 to 24 months)
  • Toddlers (2 to 4 years)
  • Preteens (10 to 12 years)
  • Teenagers (13 to 17 years)
• Adults (from 18 years)
  • Young adults (18 to 40 years)
  • Middle-aged people (40 to 60 years)
  • Old people (from 60 years)

This is based on an earlier version of the Wikipedia article on the development of the human body. While the spans of individual life stages are no longer available in the said article (although a diagram on child development stages is available), they can be found in the articles on individual life stages. According to those articles, the spans should be the following:

• Children (0 to 17 years)
  • Babies (0 to 3 years)
    • Toddlers (1 to 3 years)
  • Preteens (9 to 12 years)
  • Teenagers (13 to 17 years)
• Adults (from 18 years)
  • Young adults (18 to 39 years)
  • Middle-aged people (40 to 59 years)
  • Old people (from 60 years)

I also want to fill the gap of children aged 4 to 8 years by introducing "early children" (from early childhood). Discuss the proposed stages of human life. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia article on child development stages, the child life is divided into the following stages:

• Babies (0 to 12 months)
• Early children (1 to 4 years)
  • Toddlers (12 to 24 months)
• Middle-aged children (5 to 8 years) (middle childhood)
• Preteens (9 to 11 years)
• Teenagers (12 to 17 years)

That is, toddlers can be classified as either babies or early children, depending on sources. However, the said article has a lot of problems. In the Wikipedia article on child, the child life is divided into the following stages (babies are not described in that article):

• Early children (1 to 5/6 years)
  • Toddlers (1 to 3 years)
• Middle-aged children (7 to 9/10 years) (middle childhood)
• Preteens (9 to 12 years)
• Teenagers (13 to 19 years) (post-childhood)

I'm drafting a new proposal at {{Category navigation/people/sidenote/sandbox}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the basic idea here in concept. On a practical level, I rarely find any real value in age diffusion more specific than child/adult for the vast majority of topics, but I suppose some might, so I am fine with keeping these categories, and if we keep them, they should follow a standard structure. I have a few notes to keep in mind here:

1. The only bright line we should concern ourselves with is the 18 year old line between children and adults. That has long been established on Commons as the point of definition.
2. All other stages of human development categories are only generally associated with age. Note that the chart referenced uses color fades instead of well-defined bars to indicate transition. This is of course due primarily to the facts that there isn't an exact moment when one ceases being in one stage and is fully in the next and that no two people develop at the exact same rate. In any guideline we develop for Commons, all ages (excepting the child/adult line) should be rough representations, not presented as specific chronological ages. On the current side note, this is done by using a '~' to indicate approximation.
3. Teenagers are really a chronological age, not a stage of development. They largely coincide with adolescents, but not exactly. Teenagers cannot be categorized as either children or adults, as they contain portions of both (13-17 yo children and 18-19 yo adults). "Teenagers" as a group should not be treated as a human development stage, and whether the category really has value as a grouping of chronological ages can be its own discussion if needed. Note that teenagers are not included in the development chart.
4. "Early" and "middle-aged" children seem very unfortunate names. I sympathize with the difficulty in finding a good term for this phase of childhood, but I don't think these work. Early childhood is certainly a common term, but I've never heard an individual kid referred to as an 'early child' in that sense--in fact the only thing I've heard it in reference to is remarking on a child who was born premature. As for 'middle-aged child' I've likewise never heard the phrase used in my life, though I could maybe see someone using it to remark on their teenager's lazing around like a 45-yo couch potato. I have thought before on how to capture this middle group in a category, but maybe it just isn't all that necessary. If we actually know the subject's age, we have chronological age categories to handle that, but for the most part I think 'children' is good enough.
5. Toddlers and Preteens seem of pretty dubious utility to me as age sorting categories. I have no problem with the main categories to depict the concept of toddlerhood or preteens, but I don't see much value in diffusing most people categories down to those two subs. Babies are a pretty clear group that makes a little more sense, and I get adolescents being distinct from children in general a little more, but if we remove toddlers and preteens from this scheme, that would be fine by me. If kept, 'preteens' should be renamed 'preadolescents' if it is really going to be a human stage of development category.
6. The adult categories are pretty arbitrary and I don't use them much, but I don't have a particular problem them in general. I don't think it is a good idea to change the age numbers as you have (e.g. young adult from 18-40 changed to 18-39) as this gives a false impression of accuracy in correlating stage of development to age, and particularly for these adult categories, the age ranges are VERY general. Frankly, if a picture of a 45 year old is placed in young adults because they exhibit the characteristics of that stage of development, that is fine, and likewise, a 35 year old getting placed in middle-aged because they show characteristics of that stage is fine as well. The age range for young adults should be "18 to roughly 40" and middle-aged "roughly 40 to roughly 60".
7. Overall, I reiterate the importance of remembering these are stages of development, not chronological age categories, and so their correlation with chronological age can be roughly identified, but should not be specifically pinned down.

Josh (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Thank you for your comments. Here are my replies:

1. Biologically, childhood is the period between infancy and adolescence. However, for legal and practical reasons, the 18-year period since birth is often considered childhood. This includes both infancy and adolescence. So there are no reasons not to accept the period as childhood.
2. I also understand the issue of associating the stages of development with exact ages. Anyway, I have made the age ranges discrete to allow age-based categorizations.
3. I also understand that teenagers are really a decadal age (like Category:Octogenarians and Category:Nonagenarians) rather than a stage of development. However, in popular usage, the terms "teenage" and "adolescence" are often synonyms. Since we emphasize more on navigation than on ontology, I think giving the teenagers the dual nature of being both a decadal age and a stage of development is a better choice. Categories like Category:Adolescent boys and Category:Adolescent girls should use "teenage" instead of "adolescent".
4. I am not a native speaker of English, so I am just guessing whether the terms "early children" and "middle-aged children" are appropriate or not. I have also thought of the more common term "young children" but am wondering whether it would include babies or not. Since infancy and early childhood are considered distinct stages of development in human biology, I think "young children" won't be a bad idea.
5. Toddlers should be kept to show the concept of the ability of the babies to walk freely. Preteens are rather an unnecessary category, since it is hard to identify whether a child is close to adolescence or not.
6. Adults might be another unnecessary category to lump young adults, middle-aged people, and old people. However, we have well-established categories like Category:Men and Category:Women, who are currently defined as adult humans. If a middle-aged person behaves like a young adult, the person can be categorized under young adults as long as the actual age is not known. However, adult humans behaving like children would go under Category:Childish adults, and Category:Adultish children for the opposite.
7. Although they are stages of development, they do often correspond to particular ages. I want to make their age ranges discrete to allow categorizing age-based categories. Thus categories with a lot of images showing old people can be divided into Category:Sexagenarians (60 to 69), Category:Septuagenarians (70 to 79), Category:Octogenarians (80 to 89), Category:Nonagenarians (90 to 99), Category:Centenarians (100 to 109), and Category:Supercentenarians (above 110), if their ages are known. Otherwise, we would have to categorize the files in Category:Narendra Modi in 2024 under Category:Old men of India individually.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I actually kind of like responding to a list with a list...maybe it appeals to some orderly sense, who knows. However, it might be easier to let some of these become discrete discussions so they can be individually followed more easily. Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescence and childhood

I think you are right (#1 above) about childhood often referring to the pre-adolescent period of development. Obviously we all I'm sure understand why the 18yo line has become such a bright line for categorization, and while that is not strictly a developmental boundary, I think it is just a fact of life any system we have will have to live with. As for the children, I suppose we could use a term such a "minors" for 0-18 yo and repurpose "children" as "0 to adolescence". You are also correct that 'adolescent' and 'teenage' are very commonly referred to synonymously in almost all colloquial English discussion. The problem for us in categories is that we have to be a bit more clear about definition. It doesn't really matter what term we use--for this point at any rate--but it does matter what the scope is. The fact that Category:Teenagers has not been restricted to minors--18 and 19 yo adults are allowed--it can't really be put under children unless we retroactively go through and purge the 18/19 yo content out, put a clear definition that it only includes adolescent minors, and enforce that going forward. Totally doable, but I'm not sure why we would bother when we have adolescent children there to do that job and teenagers can be left as it is. To me, the following two are equally fine, so long as they are understood by the community:

• Category:People
  • Category:Adult humans
  • Category:Children
    • Category:Adolescent children (puberty to 18 yo)
    • Category:Babies, etc.
  • Category:Teenagers (13-19 yo)

Or:

• Category:People
  • Category:Adult humans
  • Category:Minors
    • Category:Teenagers (13 through 17)
    • Category:Children (birth through pre-adolescence)

You can swap some of the category names between so there are more combinations than this, but hopefully the point is clear. In the first option, Teenagers are an overlap category covering part of children and part of adults. Items there should also be in their relevant adult or child category. In the second, the overlap category is gone, so all files would first be diffused by adult/minor and then can be sub-diffused to more selective categories such as teens or children. Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combining chronological age and developmental age categorization into a singular track

I think I understand, so you are essentially looking to dovetail in chronological age categorization along with developmental age categorization versus having them remain as separate stand-alone schemes? In this way we would have the chronological categories listed under their parent developmental age categories more uniformly, permitting easier maintenance and consistent user expectations. That is very different from the current scheme, but it could work. Is this what you are going for? Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Term for ~4 to ~9 year old children

I don't have any better terms for this group of children, so I shouldn't knock what you threw out there: my apologies if it came across that way. My point was more that in the end I haven't really seen a great need for a sub-cat covering those ages. Based on #2 above, I imagine you want a more complete scheme covering all ages if you are going to dovetail in chronological age categories. As you know I am not so stuck on exact terminology as I am on good structure, so who know, maybe someone will have a great suggestion at some point. Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Utility of toddlers and preteen categories

I am not denying that toddlers are their own important phase of development. But we use this scheme for all manner of topics and for most of them I would wager this isn't terribly needful to segregate toddlers specifically from other young children. Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Options to restructure adult age groups, eliminate Category:Adult humans?

Adults is a cornerstone category, not just a lumping category. Most files depicting adults are not further diffused into young/middle/old, and I don't think they ever will. Afterall, many files aren't terribly clear as to the age of a person, so how do you handle that if you do away with 'adults'. I think that's a non-starter, quite frankly. Sidenote: You are right that Men and Women are currently defined as adults, but I'm not sure what else anyone would want to change them to, so curious about why that word was used. Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of behavior depicted

Behavior is something different, maybe not 100% divorced from these categories, but when we are talking about developmental phases, we are talking physical development, not mental or behavioral. I don't think we need to muddy the waters worrying about behavior here. Josh (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner

Adolescence and childhood

I'm now supporting the following category scheme:

• Category:Babies (0 to 3)
• Category:Children (4 to 12)
• Category:Teenagers (13 to 17)
• Category:Adult humans (above 18)

While "minor" is a quite common term for people below the age of majority, it is rather legally defined and its definition varies by jurisdiction. Instead, we can follow the original manual list and divide the human life into babies, children, teenagers, and adults. I have not heard of people aged 18 or 19 being called teenagers, so those ages can be safely excluded from the definition. Also, Category:Adolescent boys and Category:Adolescent girls should be renamed to "male teenagers" and "female teenagers" to restrict the terms "boys" and "girls" to children aged 4 to 12.

Combining chronological age and developmental age categorization into a singular track

Yes, this is what I'm going for.

Term for ~4 to ~9 year old children

This is no longer necessary per my above proposal, as "children" covers young people aged 4 to 12. As said before, Category:Preteens can be done away with as a category.

Utility of toddlers and preteen categories

I agree with your thoughts.

Options to restructure adult age groups, eliminate Category:Adult humans?

I don't support eliminating this category, and I don't even support redefining Category:Men and Category:Women to anything other than adult humans.

Relevance of behavior depicted

We shouldn't really worry about behavioral development here. Human development is mainly about physical development.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just resurrected Category:Young people to categorize people below 40. This can be used as a container category for babies, children, teenagers, and young adults. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So then Category:Young people is essentially Category:People under 40. What exactly is the purpose or value of this category? Why not a category for Category:People under 60 or Category:People over 12 or Category:People from 3 to 40 or any other age group? I'm obviously not getting it. Josh (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the subs there, Category:Young females and Category:Young males are malformed, they should be Category:Young female humans and Category:Young male humans as there are young males and females of all sexually reproducing species. Josh (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Nice, I think we are down to just the new proposal. It certainly appears more streamlined, which I am a fan of, but of course it raises new questions:

1. How exactly do you plan to transition "children" from its current scope (birth to 18) to its new scope (4 to 12)? Most current children categories have babies and adolescents included, and not already diffused, so it is a lot more than simply removing 'baby' or 'adolescent' sub-categories from 'children'.
2. What do we do with content of children where the age is not known?
3. Some of the terminology should be tweaked. "13 to 17" should be "13 through 17" to clarify that it is exactly up to the 18th birthday. "Above 18" can be interpreted as "19 and older" (18 is not greater than 18) so "18 and older" or such is more clear.
4. What purpose do these categories serve, as under this proposal they are merely groupings of specific ages?

I am very skeptical about eliminating developmental stage categorization by forcing it to align with chronological age categorization. I know you aren't proposing their deletion, but forcing them to strictly align with chronological age categorization essentially does away with any ability to use them to actually demonstrate developmental stages. Let me present a an example to show why I am concerned:

• Per your proposal, if we have two images of the same youngster walking along through the park alongside his mom, one from the day before his 4th birthday, and one from the day after, we would have to categorize the first under 'babies' (0-3) and the second under 'children' (4-12). The problem is that these images depict no measurable difference in the child's development, and from a developmental perspective, there would be no reason to put these in separate categories. To me, this indicates that your proposal would essentially mean these are no longer a way to diffuse based on developmental stage and instead they are merely another way to group by chronological age.

I understand the allure of chronological age categorization: it can be definitively and unambiguously determined and promotes a clean and orderly way to index content. Stages of human development are fuzzy, never completely defined, and always subject to constant interpretation, so it can often be debatable which category content belongs in and where the boundaries lie, leading to inconsistent categorization and less orderly category schemes. This is why we have both chronological and developmental age categorization as two separate schemes and content can be indexed within each of them independently. Josh (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner I understand your thinking. Here are my counterarguments:

1. My plan is not only to remove baby and adolescent categories from children but also to diffuse all the files to Category:Young people, which will contain babies, children, teenagers, and young adults. Then we can diffuse those files into approval subcats.
2. If the age is not known, we can categorize the files based on the physical development of the young person depicted. If the physical development is also not clear, then the file would stay in the young people category and not subject to further diffusion.
3. Thank you for the tweaks to make things clearer.
4. Although I want to the developmental stages into certain chronological ages, the categories can still be used to demonstrate those stages. Here's my answer to your example:
   • I had previously thought about something like this. In that borderline case, you can categorize both pics under babies or children as long as the pics don't show any measurable difference in the young person's development. You can find whether the person's pre-birthday and post-birthday photos are on the same month/week, and categorize accordingly. It is a rough guidance, not a policy or proposal.

We don't have chronological age categories for most topics, so the diffusion into stages of development will be based on the common sense. However, if we have more than 100 files on old people doing similar activities, we can diffuse them into decadal categories. Otherwise, such diffusions are generally not necessary. I have considered the chronological ages for the main categories only. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary reason for integrating the chronological ages (CA hereafter) with the stages of development (SHD hereafter) is the reduction of unnecessary crowding of SHD categories. If we don't put Category:Narendra Modi in 2024 (or earlier) under Category:Old men of India, we would have hundreds of pics of Modi in the latter, making the category unnecessarily crowded. Modi is obviously old during his entire premiership (2014–). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 16:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some of that makes sense, and I suspected that there might be some flexibility but that then begs the question: why stick so strictly to exact age bands versus just keeping the more approximate age bands already associated with developmental categories?

You are correct that actual chronological age sorting is not practical in a lot of cases. For almost all files that are not of notable people (their known bio data can be cross-referenced to the image date to calculate age) do not have any citation of age in the image, and so true chronological sorting isn't possible. This is one reason I am not jumping on board tying chronological ages so tightly here.

I don't disagree with the concept that developmentally-speaking, "children" most accurately is defined as between infancy and puberty. My concern is that it is already so long-standing at its current definition on Commons that change is quite momentous. Since "children" is also completely correct to use for the range of birth to adulthood, and can cover a range even including the unborn in some cases, I don't think the current usage is really wrong, and therefore I'm not sure it meets the threshold to be worth such a drastic change. I believe there may be some other ways to go about this and get to the result you seem to be aiming at without the carnage along the way.

I do not think Category:People under 40 (what you have as Category:Young people) is a good category, and see my earlier comment on it for why. There are a lot of reasons why the most basic age division is along the 18 yo line between children/minors and adults. The issue with Category:Teenagers is enough of a problem, compounding it with something like Young people make no sense to me. Josh (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about Modi arrived while I was typing. There is no problem with including Category:Narendra Modi in 2024 under Category:Old men of India right now. No changes are required to permit that, so I don't see this as a reason for the integration you are proposing. Josh (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it is already so long-standing at its current definition on Commons that change is quite momentous.

@Joshbaumgartner The definition of children as people under 18 is a fairly recent thing in Commons. We still have manually curated lists that define children as people aged from 3 to 12.

Since "children" is also completely correct to use for the range of birth to adulthood, and can cover a range even including the unborn in some cases, I don't think the current usage is really wrong, and therefore I'm not sure it meets the threshold to be worth such a drastic change. I believe there may be some other ways to go about this and get to the result you seem to be aiming at without the carnage along the way.

Unfortunately, that's quite true. Since the range of babies will be 3 years (0-3) and teenagers will be 4 years (13-17), it is better to use the term "children" to cover people from birth to adulthood, which can fix the aforementioned borderline case. So I no longer want to narrow the definition of children to cover the range between 4 to 12 years. The current definition is fine as far as practicality is concerned.

I do not think Category:People under 40 (what you have as Category:Young people) is a good category, and see my earlier comment on it for why. There are a lot of reasons why the most basic age division is along the 18 yo line between children/minors and adults. The issue with Category:Teenagers is enough of a problem, compounding it with something like Young people make [sic] no sense to me.

Category:Young people is still useful to demonstrate the well-known concept of Category:Youth. I know there are legal and practical reasons to consider the 18-year-old line between children and adults. But some adults are young in some aspects, and we categorize them under Category:Young adults. This is why I have reintroduced Category:Young people to categorize all people below 40, regardless of adulthood. Young adults are an intersection of young people and adult humans. We also have Category:Young musicians, which can be used for people who are/were musicians at a young age. Category:Young and old people can be used for media showing people below 40 (young people) and people at 60 or above (old people) together. There are good reasons why we call the 40 to 59-year range "middle age". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified {{Category navigation/people/sidenote/sandbox}} to reflect my current proposal of SHD categories, where you can see the overlap of young people and adults. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Why not just have Youth as a parent category for Children and Young adults? Young people still seems like an unnecessary level there. Josh (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner The relation between Category:Young people and Category:Youth is similar to the one of Category:People and Category:Homo sapiens, the former is for individuals and the latter is for the general concept. That is, Category:Young people should be used for the individual persons or groups exhibiting youth, while Category:Youth is the general concept not limited to the individuals, like Category:Youth culture, Category:Youth politics, etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Category:People cycling and Category:Cycling, Category:People exercising and Category:Physical exercises, etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I get all of that but the question is not whether Category:Young people itself makes sense as a topic--maybe it does. The question is whether it additionally makes sense as a criteria for diffusion by age, and I do not see the value of it since in that case it is merely going to be a grouping category of no real benefit. I suppose I don't mind it existing in limited cases where you might find real value in it. I haven't really seen any such cases, but I don't preclude they may possibly exist. However, I do not want to build it in to the standard 'by age' structure which users should expect to find replicated (per the Hierarchic Principle) across most topics. Josh (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for your insight. Since it is mostly a bilateral discussion, I can close it only if we reach a final agreement. Since we have somewhat agreed on the proposed human stages of development (excluding the Category:Young people category, which will be decided later), I think I will implement this across all topics. The chronological age categories will be subcats of HSOD categories, but the HSOD categories themselves won't be strictly defined by them. They will merely approximate them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed my proposal at {{Category navigation/people/sidenote/sandbox}} for the purpose of implementation. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I agree with the updated list per this version, so I think we can go ahead with that and worry about young people separately. Josh (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner Also, if possible, we can create male, female, non-binary, etc. versions of this proposed sidenote. It is a good idea to define common words like "boys", "girls", "men", and "women" in this template. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 They were included at some point, but drew criticism as there was no way to cleanly do that and give adequate NPOV coverage of gender. Gender sort of just muddled the thing up. Remember that this sidebar is just a brief handy guide for ages, no need to make it more than that. On the other hand, what might make sense is a standardized hat note for inclusion on 'people' pages that gives the Commons standard definition for the given terminology used on that page (e.g. on 'category:boys', add 'boys include all male humans of less than 18 years of age'). The category navigation templates can easily support automatically adding this hat note on the correct pages. Josh (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner It is a better option, especially for common words like "boys", "girls", "men", and "women". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Implement the new consensus definition on the sidenote. Create hatnote for each human stage of development. Open a separate discussion for young people.
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People by age per the Universality Principle. All subcats by age are using "people", not humans. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is the necessity of Category:Humans by stage of development when we already have people by age categories. For example, Category:People of the United States by age categorizes children, babies, teenagers, young adults, middle-aged people and old people. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support both being renamed from 'humans' to 'people', and applying this to their subs. Josh (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Rename Category:Humans by age to Category:People by age ( Doing…). Rename Category:Humans by stage of development to Category:People by stage of development ( Done).
Participants	Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) (nominator) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have two categories for people aged between 40 and 60, viz. Category:Mid-aged people and Category:Middle-aged people. I support the latter, as it is consistent with the subcategories Category:Middle-aged men and Category:Middle-aged women. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge Category:Mid-aged people into Category:Middle-aged people. One is enough. JopkeB (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Benzoyl (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Merge Category:Mid-aged people to Category:Middle-aged people ( Already done).
Participants	JopkeB (talk · contribs) Benzoyl (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) (nominator) 18:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intersection categories like this are discouraged as per the simplicity principle of COM:CAT. While people often confuse between the two types of green spaces, gardens and parks are quite different things. According to Wikidata, a garden is a "planned space set aside for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants", while a park is a "permanently dedicated recreation area, often open to the public and generally characterized by natural, historic, or landscape features". If a green space is a garden as well as a park, then that can be categorized under both. However, that doesn't mean we should have intersection categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Zoos can be described as either gardens (zoological gardens) or parks (zoological parks). So they should be categorized under both gardens and parks categories separately and not under this container category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Have you seen the number of child categories and their contents? There would be a huge amount of work is dispersing these to one or other of the parents. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They should all be tagged with {{Intersection category}} to diffuse them into appropriate categories. Science and technology also had a lot of childs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Laurel Lodged Quantity is no reason to keep bad practices in place. It will only get worse. Science and technology was more immense than this one and took a significant amount of time and work to unravel, but it is now complete. Josh (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said that I disagreed. I'm just saying that's it a lot of work. I don't see it being done by a bot. So that's a lot of manual dispersion work. Who going to volunteer for that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 Thanks for stepping into this one. A couple of quick baselines:

1. Are Category:Gardens and Category:Parks truly distinct? I presume there is some overlap, but do both contain portions that do not fit within the other, i.e. are there both gardens that are not parks and parks that are not gardens? Are Category:Zoos likewise overlapping these two in some instances but distinct from one or the other in at least some instances?
2. Is there any value to retaining this level of hierarchy to gather gardens, parks, and possibly zoos specifically for some purpose?

Josh (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My counterarguments:

1. There are several gardens that don't have park facilities, especially botanical gardens (e.g. Category:Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Indian Botanic Garden). Similarly, there are parks that don't necessarily have garden elements, for example Category:Park Circus Ground, Category:Oval Maidan, Mumbai. Category:Zoos might be recreation areas with wild animals (zoological parks) or displays of both wild animals and plants (zoological gardens). I think the only thing zoos are distinct from gardens and parks (including national parks) is that they are planned spaces with collections of different species of wild animals, and the animals are not necessarily native to the spaces (i.e. ex situ conservation, as opposed to in situ conservation in national parks).
2. As said before, I don't really like intersectional categories, as per the Simplicity Principle and the arguments at Commons:Intersectional categories. We should always strive for categories covering single topics. This is why we have eliminated categories like "buildings and structures", "roads and streets", "nude or partially nude people", "science and technology" etc.

Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the elimination of intersectional categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We have to keep in mind that in many languages traditionally the spaces that are essentially parks bear the word "garden" in their names. Consider Summer Garden for example that is correctly placed into Category:Parks in Saint Petersburg. So the attempts of total separating between parks and gardens might result in somewhat confusing consequences. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Diffuse Category:Gardens and parks and its subcats into appropriate subcategories. Convert Category:Gardens and parks and its subcats into dab pages, similar to Category:Science and technology.
Participants	Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) Joshbaumgartner (talk · contribs) Андрей Романенко (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

How is this different from Category:Natural monoliths? Sinigh (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that there is no difference between them, it would be a duplicate category. Ciaurlec (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it, and since noone else has said anything else since July, I merged Category:Monoliths (geology) into Category:Natural monoliths. Sinigh (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monoliths (geology) merged into Category:Natural monoliths. Sinigh (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the Wikipedia category uses "female superheroes", I don't think the term is appropriate, given we already have "superheroines", which is used by the Wikipedia article. Compare Male actors and Actresses. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i prefer "male superheroes" and "female superheroes". and then there must be superheroes that have no gender, like a robot or whatever, which can maybe go into "genderless superheroes". RZuo (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinions with "male superheroes" and "genderless superheroes". I just want to rename "female superheroes" to "superheroines", since the latter is the more established name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer "female superheroes" and do not agree that "superheroines" is more established, as that is an old-fashioned term. Nosferattus (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Category:Female superheroes, I also prefer that name. And there is not even a Category:Superheroines. JopkeB (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413 I'm not convinced that "superheroines" is really the more established name, or that it should even come down to that. Realistically, the most important thing is that the name be readily identifiable and understandable to the largest scope of potential users to permit the easiest browsing of categories to both add and locate relevant files. I think superheroines (or actresses) is fine in isolation as a term, but that when presented with potential subs of Superheroes, parsing between Female superheroes and Male superheroes is better than between Superheroines and Male superheroes as it is more instantly obvious that they are parsed on the basis of gender (the visible word arrangement even gives our minds clues before actually reading the words). Obviously any other genders fit in to this scheme as well. Josh (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no support to rename this category, so it will stay as it is. --JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralize the nominated category and rename the two subcats using "divided highways" to "dual carriageways" per the universality principle of COM:CAT. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support plural but I'm not sure if the 2 subcats should be renamed as "divided highway" is used in American English as noted at w:WP:C2C. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The universality principle of COM:CAT says, "Identical items should have identical names for all countries and at all levels of categorization. The categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, and local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible. Analogic categorization branches should have an analogic structure." Since the parent category uses "dual carriageway(s)", the subcats should use the name too. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for plural. Keep the qualification of "divided" for roads named "highway". Enhancing999 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Divided highways" is an American term for what the Brits call "dual carriageways". Since we used the British term for this topic, the subcats should follow the British term too, per the aforementioned universality principle. It is unnecessary to create categories for roads named "highways". Highways include both roads designated as "highways", as well as roads connecting settlements that are not called "highways". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for the change you suggested. "meta"-level can overlap in various ways with actual names. If needed, create a redirect. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think the universality principle is a good idea when we have national variants of English, we normally expect things to be at their national English even if different to the main topic category as noted per C2C. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: WP:C2C is not applicable in Wikimedia Commons, since we have a dedicated principle for local dialects. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]