I'd really like to see this not go lower than the country level. It is hard to see how this extreme splitting by category intersection helps anyone. Notice that most of these categories contain one photo, and few contain more than a handful. - Jmabel ! talk00:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: your link just takes us to COM:VP; the discussion you are referencing is no longer active there, so we can't see that history.
I do not agree with an arbitrary limit to X-level territory for Y-level date granularity. Such things should be based on the actual files present for a given territory to decide what makes sense. For this one, day seems at least one level too granular. I should think month would be more than enough date accuracy for this district (frankly year is probably enough). Josh (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
none of the current contents are groups of 1, 1 and 10. delete this cat after the files are properly categorised. RZuo (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nopes, both images tagged with this cat are actual depictions of what the cat name implies, within the scope of other such categories:
groups of 1, 1, 3 and 7 markers (considering their placement). or, groups of 3 and 9 (considering visibility of their barcodes).
groups of 4, 1, 1, 5 and 1 pots (considering their height). or, groups of 3, yellow flowers, green leaves and red flowers (considering their colours). RZuo (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and create those categories, then. But the categorization described by me above is still correct, in spite of your curious description of it as imprecise and improper. -- Tuválkin✉✇00:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is by the way a clear example of how CfD can be misused: Normally this user would have instead recategorized the files in question (hopefully with some file talk discussion to avoid edit warring), leaving any empty categories to be quietly deleted as such. Like this, there’s a Streisand effect taking place. All considered, it’s really funny, but not in a good way. -- Tuválkin✉✇00:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? This seems more like a vague enough category that it isn't obvious. Still, CFD is a poor solution for a categorization of images question. If the images were removed and the category was empty then CFD would be a moot issue. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think moving the category is the best solution for this category. we should perhaps still categorise files related to this song when it was called "god save the queen" under that? RZuo (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The song seems to have many derivatives no way related to peculiarities and unsteadiness of the British royal establishment. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there are significant historical and cultural reasons to retain distinction between when the song appears as God Save the King or God Save the Queen. This is independent of whether the usage is connected to the British royal establishment. Whether derivatives are to Great Britain should not addressed by a separate labeling system. Kreuz und quer (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've turned it into a redirect, though I think that the new name is worse because it just means "Youth" while this category indicates that it's the newspaper. For Anglomonophones out there, that would be as if someone replaced a category called the "New York Daily" with a category called "New York" because they rarely include the official name on their website, but the latter category is obviously more ambiguous so would have to be replaced by something called "New York (newspaper)". Plus, the nominator assumed that the old category had to be deleted rather than redicted which would also cause other editors to think that there was no category for the "Báo Thanh niên" as it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. Either way, bad move. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AddendumThe Vietnamese-language Wikipedia article is called "Thanh Niên (báo)" and starts with "Báo Thanh Niên là một tờ nhật báo Việt Nam có trụ sở tại Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.", If you actually type in "Thanh Niên" in the Wiktionary you'll be redirected to this page which reads: "Etymology - Edit - Sino-Vietnamese word from 成年. - Pronunciation - Edit - (Hà Nội) IPA(key): [tʰajŋ̟˨˩ niən˧˧] - (Huế) - IPA(key): [tʰɛɲ˦˩ niəŋ˧˧] - (Hồ Chí Minh City) IPA(key): [tʰan˨˩ niəŋ˧˧] - Adjective - Edit - thành niên = having come of age; adult", which clearly doesn't even mention the newspaper. Either way, the new name is more ambiguous and should probably be a redirect or a disambiguation page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to solve a mess. Following en:Tracht, Tracht is the (regional and internationally accepted) name for traditional clothing in German speaking countries and regions (*). Therefor it is correct, to find that category in Category:Traditional clothing by ethnic group. However belowCategory:Tracht there is no common rule wheter to call the categories Traditional costumes of region XY or Tracht from region XY. Some examples:
I agree that in a Jewish/Christian/Muslim context, the word 'idolatrous' tends to be negatively judgmental. I suggest Religious procession with idols; specifying 'religious' could seem awkward, but it may avoid confusion with Korean pop stars. -- Verbarson talkedits08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle I disagree that the word has negative connotations. I just think of it as a word that's often used in a religious sense. And I got married in a Catholic church... David10244 (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the linked CFD discussion Olybrius says that they are needed for maps on distribution of names. I think we could concentrate on that problem instead, and I think it is better done through a maps hierarchy, with categories such as Category:Maps of surnames in Europe and Category:Maps of surnames in the world. Now, if you want to make maps of names of Belgium, or whatever, I am not convinced that you need a category for those; a list of Belgian names could as well point to categories for each name. Such lists could be on Wikipedias or on gallery pages (with assortments of such maps). Lists with proper sources should probably be on Wikipedia. Is this adequate? Are there other use cases for these categories? –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very difficult to document geography here (as against language, which is clearer). For several of these countries, the meaning of that country name in eras when people were mostly taking surnames is itself a tricky question (e.g. is a name from Gdansk "from Germany" or "from Poland"? And "from the United States"?? Almost no surnames have originated in the U.S., and almost any can be found there. - Jmabel ! talk06:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this categoryCategory:Surnames from Germany, I just realized I neglected to comment here. The purpose of the creation of Category:Surnames from BelgiumCategory:Surnames from Germany was to parallel existing related categories (as listed above). If those related categories are removed/renamed/etc., I have no problem with the same thing happening to this category. I agree that classifying names by geography is not always straightforward, and that using language is generally (albeit not always) a clearer distinction, but I don't have the knowledge to be able to determine the languages of the names listed in this category. I suppose that is an argument in favor of keeping geographically-oriented categories – language origin is not in fact always clear – but I don't have strong feelings either way. – Kreuz und quer (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC); edited 16:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Splitting is getting out of hand here. There is absolutely no good reason for this intersection category. All of these should be moved up to the parent categories here. Jmabel ! talk15:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WaitQuestion@Jmabel: Why only Democratic governors of Washington? Or are you proposing abolishing the entire "X partyY position of Z state" level of categorization? Josh (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Yes, I would be more than glad to get rid of that entirely. While it is worth classifying politicians by which party they belonged to, if you are looking for past governors of a state it is ridiculous to have to know which party they belonged to to find them.
At a certain point, categories become over-large and there is a reason to split them so that things can be found, but when a category like the governors of a particular U.S. state is not terribly big, then it's absolutely a liability to split it along a dimension where only relatively expert people will be able to guess which way to go. This splitting makes it harder to find things, not easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: What if there were a category like "Governors of Washington (state) by name" that contained all of them? Then people wouldn't have to know the party to find what they're looking for. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As in the parallel discussion for congressional representatives, a flat cat at that level would be fine, but there still will probably be governors with a photo or two, but no individual category, and I still think those are better off at top level than sorted by party affiliation. - Jmabel ! talk16:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting is getting out of hand here. There is absolutely no good reason for this intersection category. All of these should be moved up to the parent categories here. Jmabel ! talk15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to combining the discussions, though it is not obvious that they would have the same outcome. There are far more members of the State House than there are governors, so this one might be more reasonable. I personally would be glad to get rid of both, though, on the same basis. - Jmabel ! talk23:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: What if there were a by-name category that contained all of the reps from Washington state? People wouldn't have to know the political party to look for someone. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: For a lot of numbers (including many integers), they don't strictly need the "(number)" dab as there are no other categories to get confused with. However, since many of them do need that, instead of require every single number be evaluated on a case-for-case basis, and for the matter of simplicity and consistency, we just went with adding "(number)" to all of them. I think this is a valid approach, even if not strictly necessary for each instance. Josh (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo and Joshbaumgartner: Primarily, all numbers without dissambiguation should be names of categories for numbers. Unfortunately, part of the number series of integers is usurped for categores of years. As because of these categories, the categories of these numbers must have a dissambiguation "(number)", it is practical for all categories of numbers to have the same uniform dissambiguation. Generally, such expressions with numbers divided by one or more dots can have various special meanings, such as IP adress (1.1.1.1), Enzyme Commission number (1.1.1.303), software versions (1.19.84), artwork name (5.0, 2.23), race classification (2.1) etc. I suppose, expressions with one dividing dot can have amounts of various special meanings as identifiers, codes, values etc. Many specific combinations can evoke rather any special usage than the general number value. If we have to deal with something, than first of all to move all year categories to a name with "(year)" dissambiguation, to gain the pure numbers as category names for numbers. --ŠJů (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ŠJů, I agree with what you are saying here. I would add that when adding disambiguation becomes as likely as not for a topic, it is better to simply have a standard dab rule that can be applied to each member of the topic. For example, this is currently how ships are handled, and seems to be the way works are going too. It eliminates needing to make individual corner case decisions for specific instances. Not only do those decisions consume time and effort to research, but they are prone to being wrong and having to get changed again later. RZuo may be completely correct that there is no real ambiguity for some numbers, but having to parse which ones do or do not need a dab seems like an additional hurdle to easy use that doesn't offer a lot of benefit. SJu is correct that if anything is going to be un-dabbed, it should be the number category that is without dab, while years and other uses get dabbed. However, I doubt there is much appetite to complete change both year and number categories to make this change...but I could be wrong. I would be fine with adding (year) in principle, but years are so broadly used in category names we would have to be pretty comprehensive in making such a change and still complying with the Universality Principle. In any case, that is hardly the thrust of this CfD, and for the nominated categories, I would argue to Keep as they are for consistency, barring some far more comprehensive discussion about numbers, years, et al. Josh (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venn Diagram of Numbers
i agree that the 1st problem can be resolved.
there's still the 2nd problem: "all these subcats are actually "non-integers in base 10", which is a subset of all "decimal numbers".we need to sort out the whole set of numbers."
This category seems way too granular. We do not have books published in city by year (compare Category:Books published in New York City, Category:Books published in Paris, etc.) The problem is each category creates a tiny tree of year in London, and books in London by that decade, and basically each category is the entirely of the Books published in the United Kingdom by year parent. The largest category here (Category:1908 books from London does contain 68 categories but the parent Category:1908 books from the United Kingdom has eight more. Better to upmerge these to decade, rename these into a England category (likely the same) and merge in the books from the UK. This is also helpful because of the complicated prior-1707 books from London categories which have a mix of books from GB/books from the UK where England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are a better split. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that this is the only "published in" category versus the other "from" in the parent tree. Published in is used for the city categories but it isn't done by year. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems granular, but London had for centuries by far the largest output of books in England if not the world, dwarfing entire European countries. My efforts are also restricted to London right now, so no wonder London stands out. As for the name, it is a sub-category of Category:Books published in London; but the per-year-categories are always using the "from"; so all child-categories are using the "from London" as well. I don't object to renaming the parent category into "from". --Enyavar (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit (update): I did not create the categories that are (at the moment) still red, I only created the "from London" categories. If the categories "from GB"/"from UK" exist, the template makes it easy to navigate towards them and check if there is content that can be moved into "from London" (we would also need to empty the GB/UK categories per the proposal to move into "from England", right?). I am/was aware that these two parent categories are essential duplicates and at times anachronistic. For the time being they are both heavily used in the 19th century, so I included them temporarily until the matter of the CfDs is resolved - please nobody create them just for the purpose of having them around, this cannot be a permanent part of the template anyway.
I see the future of this part of the category tree as follows: "Books from <national-unit-of-the-British-Isles> by year" (the name of the nation changes, but there can only be one of them, not UK and GB parallel). This parent category then invariably owns the category "Books from England by year" and additionally Scotland, Wales and Ireland as needed. Within "Books from England by year", there is "Books from London by year". As far as I checked, even in the 1590s there are enough books from London to justify this distinction. Probably in the 1550s and earlier, we might not have enough books each year, so we can only use the "Books from <England/London> by <decade or century>" instead. (I did some work and now have sorted about ~100 books in the 1590s and 1600s, and in the 1640s there are at least ~250 from London. Updated as of --15:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC))
What I don't think is worth doing, is "at first" setting up three categories in each file, and later come back to replace the three categories with the one that I wanted to use all along. It means doing the same work but four times instead of once. --Enyavar (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support We already have categories like Category:Books from England by year etc. so the only job that needs to be done is to tediously move categories and files from here, into those specific categories. Seems like a lot of work, maybe some bot would be able to help with it. Mikinisk (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose :Here are a few examples of books explicitly published or copyrighted in "Great Britain" in the early 20th century, with links to the texts at Wikisource, where you can also see the text in a scan of the original print of the books:
So clearly the publishers themselves in the 20th century were still regarding Great Britain as a recognized place for purposes of publishing and copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category should be moved to "Dia Beacon" as the colon is only stylized for the general name "Dia" not for the individual museums. Sourced to the website for the museum[1]Found5dollar (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this reflects the former styling the museum used, but I'm unsure if it is still in use anywhere in this style. ɱ(talk)15:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please realise the instruction that files and categories can be moved or deleted AFTER the discussion. It is inpossible for me as initiator of the category to find out why I created this category when it is inpossible to see which ships were involved.--Stunteltje (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph shows a storehouse at the shipbuilder Wigham Richardson's Neptune Yard. In 1881 the owner John Wigham Richardson made a large sundial, which can be seen here hanging on the storehouse wall. He also wrote a motto underneath: 'Watching these fleeting hours soon past, remember that which comes at last.' The storehouse was taken down when Wigham Richarson merged with Swan Hunter in 1902, but the sundial was preserved, and today it is in Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' collections. Reference: TWCMS: 2001.3617 (Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure - for image licensing enquiries please follow this link
Support but categorise both into similar categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The song seems to have many derivatives no way related to peculiarities and unsteadiness of the British royal establishment. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep, I've turned it into a redirect, though I think that the new name is worse because it just means "Youth" while this category indicates that it's the newspaper. For Anglomonophones out there, that would be as if someone replaced a category called the "New York Daily" with a category called "New York" because they rarely include the official name on their website, but the latter category is obviously more ambiguous so would have to be replaced by something called "New York (newspaper)". Plus, the nominator assumed that the old category had to be deleted rather than redicted which would also cause other editors to think that there was no category for the "Báo Thanh niên" as it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. Either way, bad move. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Addendum The Vietnamese-language Wikipedia article is called "Thanh Niên (báo)" and starts with "Báo Thanh Niên là một tờ nhật báo Việt Nam có trụ sở tại Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh.", If you actually type in "Thanh Niên" in the Wiktionary you'll be redirected to this page which reads: "Etymology - Edit - Sino-Vietnamese word from 成年. - Pronunciation - Edit - (Hà Nội) IPA(key): [tʰajŋ̟˨˩ niən˧˧] - (Huế) - IPA(key): [tʰɛɲ˦˩ niəŋ˧˧] - (Hồ Chí Minh City) IPA(key): [tʰan˨˩ niəŋ˧˧] - Adjective - Edit - thành niên = having come of age; adult", which clearly doesn't even mention the newspaper. Either way, the new name is more ambiguous and should probably be a redirect or a disambiguation page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Surnames by ethnicity and Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/03/Category:Surnames from Europe. 
Delete very difficult to document geography here (as against language, which is clearer). For several of these countries, the meaning of that country name in eras when people were mostly taking surnames is itself a tricky question (e.g. is a name from Gdansk "from Germany" or "from Poland"? And "from the United States"?? Almost no surnames have originated in the U.S., and almost any can be found there. - Jmabel ! talk 06:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait 
Question @Jmabel: Why only Democratic governors of Washington? Or are you proposing abolishing the entire "X party Y position of Z state" level of categorization? Josh (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Strong support We already have categories like Category:Books from England by year etc. so the only job that needs to be done is to tediously move categories and files from here, into those specific categories. Seems like a lot of work, maybe some bot would be able to help with it. Mikinisk (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
