Commons talk:Categories

Comet orbit diagrams

@C messier: You have removed Category:Comets from File:501P orbit.png.[1] I have reverted your edit.[2] Please note that Commons:Categories#Categorizing pages asks for this category to be used in this exact situation, quote:

[If] you are uploading a diagram showing the orbit of comets, you could add the following to the image description page:
[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]
This will make the diagram show up in the categories Astronomical diagrams and Comets.

This has been the standard example for how to categorize pages since the beginning of the project, with the current version in place since this edit from 19 March 2006 (almost 20 years ago), replacing a similarly worded example that was added with this edit from 23 August 2005.

This has been the explanation I gave for adding the category in the first place. Compare the summary for the edit directly preceding yours.[3] ("Categories per the suggestion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories which gives these exact two categories to be added in this exact case").

If there is good reason not to do it that way then please let me know; in that case, Commons:Categories should be changed accordingly. However, since there appears to be an extremely long established consensus on this page to have this category, it would be nice if you could point to a consensus to not use it. Renerpho (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: this example may had been good and accurate 20 years ago, when it was added, but since the creation of Category:Orbits of comets in 2011, it is obsolete and having the file in both the category Comets and Orbits of comets, it is an example of com:OVERCAT (Over-categorization is placing a file, category or other page in several levels of the same branch in the category tree.). C messier (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@C messier: So, we should change Category:Comets to Category:Orbits of comets (here, and on that file page)? Renerpho (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Renerpho: I believe it is better to just have the Category:Orbits of comets, as it is a subcat of both the categories currently listed as an example. C messier (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@C messier: Done, thank you.[4][5] Renerpho (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Now the example, isn't as good anymore. Please pick another example that is easier to understand and still has a diagrams category, e.g. Category:Astronomical diagrams. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: If you have a better example, I'd say feel free to rephrase it accordingly. Just make sure the example doesn't suffer from the same problem (belonging to a sub-category of Category:Astronomical diagrams). Renerpho (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Statistic of files without categories – explanation for strange cutoff in rise?

Number of files without category

Above is a new chart showing the number of uncategorized files on Commons. Does somebody here know more about the cutoff at 2015 or why it rose quickly until that time and then declined? Maybe the newer data is faulty or somebody knows how to get data for in between mid 2015 and early 2024. I've also asked about this at Commons talk:WikiProject Minimum One Category. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Simplicity principle

I'm honestly confused about where to start this conversation because of the seemingly inconsistent warning "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Categories" but also "This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject."

But, if this is the right place, I added a fuller explanation of the Simplicity Principle section. That provision had no explanation that clarified what it is really getting at. I added what I think is a good example, but it might have missed the mark. (The fact that I am not sure if it is a correct example sort of proves the point that the section needs some explanation.)

The bigger issue I wanted to discuss is that it seems like Wikimedia provides for an effective way of generating a lot of what are created as subcategories. For example, if I wanted to find a photo of a church in Russia, I could do a search using incategory to search for files that are simultaneously in both the category for Russia and the category for Churches.

Here is the problem that makes me crazy. Users like to create super-specific subcategories like "Three-story buildings in Boston" or "Anglican churches in Chicago" or something like that. Why is that encouraged? If I wanted to see a collection of images with those multiple characteristics, wouldn't it be better to use the incategory search for multiple characteristics? If I wanted to find an image of a Victorian house, I would have to search for every city on earth using "Victorian houses in Boston" and then "Victorian houses in Chicago" and so on because just adding it to "Victorian houses" is prohibited. The instructions on this page specifically say not to leave things in parent categories, but that seems like really bad advice.

--ProfReader (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@ProfReader:

I'm honestly confused: it means this is a place to discuss possible changes to the project page, not to discuss categorization issues in general.

I added a fuller explanation of the Simplicity Principle: I think you made a good edit.

I could do a search using incategory: conversely, as it is, you could use deepcat:"Churches in Russia". If there were less splitting and you used incategory:Churches incategory:Russia, your search would probably not (for example) anything under Category:Churches in Moscow; the deepcat gets those.

Deep-catting two separate categories in one search does not work very well, in my experience: if we didn't have Category:Churches in Russia, but had a fair number of other categories under Category:Churches and Category:Russia, the deepcat:Churches deepcat:Russia search would probably not work well. And, yes, you could go the extreme opposite way to atomistic tags, and basically give up in hierarchy altogether. It has some strengths and some weaknesses. SDC is more like that, and we have some SDC-based search approaches, but so far I can't say I've been terribly impressed by the results. The best of those I've seen so far is User:Yaron Koren's AutoCats.js.

There is always going to be a trade-off between lumping and splitting. The general, the informal consensus has been that we'd like to keep most topical categories between about 4 and 200 images (again, loose consensus, I doubt any large number of people would agree on the exact numbers). The idea of categories is more about navigating through the category tree and eyeballing than it is about categories supporting search. If you are working from a set of search terms, categories as such will not much enter the picture except for their names (which are text). But if you start from a photo that is sort-of-but-not-quite what you want, navigating to one of its categories and then navigating around the category hierarchy is often useful, and is an entirely different approach than the widely used type of search.

An example of where categories really pay off: have a look at User:Jmabel/Final draft of talk for WikiConference North America 2023. This work was basically done by leveraging the category system, and I doubt I could have done most of this with a conventional search (after all, the librarians had that). I have passed what must by now amount to 5000+ corrections back to various libraries, archives, etc., most of which they have now integrated back into their own sites.

Definitely there are categories that are excessively split. I personally dislike when people split up groups of people by gender, or when someone takes a reasonably sized category (100 or so files) and splits it into 15 tiny categories that are actually way harder to eyeball. And because of Commons' rules, the "splitters" have the advantage: anyone can unilaterally split up a category, or make an intersection between two categories, and even if it is counterproductive they can basically keep at it until it rises to the level of a discussion on COM:AN/U or such, but once a category has been split, if you want to bring it back together you have to go through a COM:CFD process and build some sort of consensus. Probably the tendency over time is to more, smaller categories, countered mainly by the continual growth of the file collection. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorting by arbitrary number

Some files are being sorted by arbitrary number such as

[[:Category:Communs (Neues Palais)|008]] (cfr.)

I cannot appreciate the sense in this, since the order criteria are absolutely arbitrary basing just on the subjectivity of the user performing the sorting. And in a project where files are being uploaded and categorized continuously, it needs to be updated constantly like this. If it were just a long and tiring work, I'd let the user do it, if it pleases them. But since it's also arbitrary, I don't see any value in letting such categorization. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC) p.s.: I also add that several users have expressed their perplexities, but the user keeps going, or, in my case, just does not answer to the messages

Yes, this is a bad change and should be reverted. It is not a useful thing to try and do. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Oursana needs to explain herself.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed ealier, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_3#File:Morgan-Middle-98029_-_Walter_Jenks_Morgan_-_St_Peter%E2%80%99s_from_Canonball_fountain_in_the_gardens_of_the_Villa_Medici.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/02#Numerical_sort_keys

The sorting of great cats is useful to get an overview and to keep things together.

I do this here for years, and my work is mostly appreciated, and I am often thanked for.

Most people in this project do not realise that their file are sorted after filename. This is arbitrary as many other things in this project. Most users do not even realize that there sorting is done after the file name and the file name normally is not chosen to sort. In realation to the whole cat you therefore get regularly similar files sorted allover the cat, closeups , remote views all in a great mass. With my transparent sortkeys I keep similar views together.

I did not answer because I was busy and am severe sick.

Royal Palace of Amsterdam is sorted to the same perspectives and same parts of the palace gong from left to right.

Burgemeesterzaal I startet sorting the ceiling paintings, which wre massed over the whole cat and side up and down.

In Exterior sculptures of Stadtschloss Potsdam I placed

• 
• 

the together belonging files side by side by sortkey, as they were sorted by the arbitrary filenames with B and G. With the sortkeys I move around the building, this is the transparent sort order.Oursana (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana: Please document your sortkey methodology on the category page for each category so treated.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Sometimes I didOursana (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana: "this was discussed ealier" but it was not resolved at all: the discussion was participated by three people, and two of them found useless that method. So you keep going even if there is no consensus. @Pigsonthewing: found it arbitrary (as I do) and @Rimshot: added that if you want to group files resembling each other, you could use subcategories. The method you are using is based just on *your* view. For some categories you group "from left to right", for others "from remote to close", for others "I move around the building". How is this consistent?

--Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 23:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC) p.s.: "I did not answer because I was busy and am severe sick" but you kept with tens of edits, come on

@Oursana: Please do it now for the rest, or you may find your actions discussed at COM:ANU.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana: Where is the documentation for your sorting of the files in Category:Großes Militärwaisenhaus, Haupthaus?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AGro%C3%9Fes_Milit%C3%A4rwaisenhaus%2C_Haupthaus#Sorting, the sorting is obvious and it is more than just putting 2 files side by side--Oursana (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana: since different users have expressed concerns about this way of editing, could you please have some respect and at least wait the end of this discussion before keeping this categorization which is not obvious to everyone? --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I too oppose this type of sorting that is not self-explanatory/sustainable. Thining ahead, it is a recipe for disaster. What happens if Oursana is no longer there to continuously guard their precious sort order? With new files being added, categories become a hot mess where not even the most basic and automatic alphabetical order is applicable. And we would all be here wondering what on earth those arbitrary sortkeys represent. I'd rather see the default but predictable alphabetical order, than something sorted as "040" which one person thinks it obviously means a viewpoint from the object's southwest... The fact that there are at least nine sections on Oursana's talk page questioning such application of sort keys, should have been enough reason for Oursana to start thinking "maybe it's not mostly appreciated". --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting files should be forbidden because is totally arbitrary, and definitely useless, as new files are uploaded every single second. Sorting after filename is not arbitrary, is how the MediaWiki software works, and forcing a different criteria makes sense just if you are 100% sure no more files would be added to a specific category, which is never the case on Commons. As others said, subcategories should be used instead. Also the claim that this work is appreciated doesn't hold water, as I was addressing the issue to Oursana one year ago, and I didn't get an answer either, and there are several other users asking about it in Oursana's talk page. --Phyrexian ɸ 06:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting files should be forbidden: absolutely not. While I think this particular case relates to an arbitrary and near-useless cat sort, there are many cases where it is useful. Some examples:

• Possibly the best example: pages of a book, where the filenames do not place them correctly in sort order.
• More generally, categories where there is a "natural order": e.g. a street where houses are numbered in order, sorted by house number, with enough leading zeroes to make the sort correct.
• Category:First Avenue, Seattle before the Great Seattle Fire is sorted in rough chronological order, based on claimed dates for these files, many of which were originally mis-dated by several years. This has been incredibly useful for bringing multiple prints/scans/crops of the same photo near one another and for working out which files were originally misdated. It also makes a very intuitive order for end users viewing the cat page.
• Categories where sort keys organize at least some of the photos bring 2 or 3 pictures of exactly the same subject together: not enough files to be worth creating a separate category for something only marginally notable, but it's useful to bring them together. E.g. bringing together multiple photos of the same person in a "people of" category.

Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Among other things, all of these are examples of where the nature of the sorting is clear (especially if you look at any of the sort keys) and where it would be no crisis if something weren't sorted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

there are many cases where it is useful, ok, I rephrase my statement: sorting files should be forbidden except in specific cases that should be indicated in the guidelines. The book pages is a good example, but I'm open to the idea there would be more cases where sorting could be useful. However I don't agree it's the case in the other examples you mentioned. "Natural order" can be a very subjective criteria, and is anyway subject to disruption as new files would be uploaded (this should not happens with book pages); also Category:First Avenue, Seattle before the Great Seattle Fire is not sorted in rough chronological order, as you can see for instance File:TW Prosch residence, 1883 (PROSCH 154).jpg (1883) is sorted after File:1st Ave, west side, looking north from Cherry St, Seattle, 1888 (CURTIS 2068).jpeg (1888); that's because the second file was uploaded in a second time, and what the uploader should do after adding a file that should be sorted first? Re-sorting all the files one by one in a category that contains already one hundred images? That's nonsense in my opinion, as much as sorting just a portion of the files and leave the others following unsorted after them. --Phyrexian ɸ 06:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Phyrexian: File:TW Prosch residence, 1883 (PROSCH 154).jpg was our of order because I had missed adding a sort key when I edited it. And, again, no great harm done when some files are not correctly sorted, especially if (as here) the sort keys are numeric, because then the unsorted files will almost always come at the end. I don't think that negates any of the value I mentioned as to why this sort key is useful. Categorization in general tends to be imperfect, but is still useful. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

i've seen User:Oursana or other users do this to files in my watchlist. i personally dont care.

here's my humble advice to @Oursana: your work might be commendable, but if one day you are no longer editing, and someone else deletes the sortkeys, the work and time you put in would be lost. therefore, if you are trying to curate a navigable and nicely presented set of images, i suggest you make com:galleries instead. RoyZuo (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw this kind of edit on my photos a few times. At the time I couldn't be bothered to bring it up, but since we're here, I too think it's arbitrary and not sustainable. I'm sorry because this seems to have been a lot of work (but even more so, one should be sure to actually have a strong consensus before starting something as big as this). -- Syrio posso aiutare? 07:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

"I do this here for years, and my work is mostly appreciated"—Evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oursana#Korrekturen_

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oursana#Seltsame_sortkeys_f%C3%BCr_meine_Bilderserie_File:Amiens_France_Cath%C3%A9drale-Notre-Dame-d-Amiens-XX.jpg Oursana (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, so there is at least one other Commons user who likes what you are doing (the first link just links to a nonexistent section of a page, so maybe it's two). And a far larger number, all very experienced in categorization, saying don't do this.. - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

two, it is just the discussion above the second (linking does not work because of the tl.

These two files are brought by other users to the beginnng of the cat via sortkey "0"

• 
• 

Oursana (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Except here I can naturally deduce from context that the sortkeys represent house numbers and "0" is implied to relate to images about just the street itself. I cannot deduce the same from your application of seemingly random numbers. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana: Seriously? We're still discussing this, and you've had seven users here telling this should not be done! -- Syrio posso aiutare? 06:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana: that trip to COM:ANU Jeff G. mentioned, is getting closer and closer if you continue to disregard the opposition and issues raised here. This reminds me strongly of en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; don't be like that --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

With artworks that is different. Also other users regularly use arbitrary sortkeys. Before this discussion I got few negative reactions but not one concerning an artwork and that is what I am doing here mostly. Also the examples of this discussion are no artworks. In your examples you expressly only tell half of the truth. I did not start now, I corrected my sortkey from 2023, same here. Oursana (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

No, the same holds for any set of files. Many more users have expressed the problematic nature of arbitrary sortkeys, which you are still applying, even if it is to "correct" things, but once again arbitrarily. Don't. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I got few negative reactions but not one concerning an artwork, that's not true, I wrote you one year ago about you sorting files, and the files were artwork pictures (as you said, you mostly sort artwork categories), and you never bother to reply, as with others expressing their concern. So I just revert you on my uploads, and sometimes other files, and for sure you get notifications of those reverts. Come on... --Phyrexian ɸ 08:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

See COM:ANU#Oursana sorting by arbitrary number.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oursana, I always appreciated the sortkeys and used them myself, mostly to have the best picture(s) at the top, because searching for a good picture is always a pita (and when I spent half an hour to sort through a bunch to find the best, why let others waist time again). And I also understand most times the underlying argument of the sorting, when I look at the whole page, and it is irrelevant, if the parameter changes, because I see the order of this specific list of images.

That said, I am very sorry to say, I understand now, Jeff G., HyperGaruda... are right to be against it. The strongest argument is the (impossible) maintenance and the awareness of you being mortal, you won't do this forever. The result over time will be a mess, so sorting by filename has to be the default.

For the best picture I often update wikidata with it, that's a win-win. I never saw the value of galleries, but maybe there is the place to sort at least the best pictures of an object; everyone can understand and update it if necessary.

I know the almost drug-like urge to sort things, it's very gratifying. But here, I think, you have to sober up, see the reasoning and respect the consensus. MenkinAlRire (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Going forward

I stopped already, but let us be open for discussions.
— User:Oursana 23:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we can establish from the comment linked above, that Oursana will stop using arbitrary sortkeys. However, I do wonder what Oursana's future plans are, considering the following comment dropped on my talk page relating to this category:

I saw you busy with the main file (no 5 of my sorting) So I would like to show you a nice self explaining numeral sorting from distant to close, is this really arbitrary. With the very broad file names you can easily see, how it would be otherwise, with 8 files not a catasthrophe, but much nicer now. Obviously my eyes are completely disturbed by disorder. In this small and simple cats sorting does at least no harm. And now I will do it - not here I hope - in a gallery, which nobody will notice. I did the sorting of this cat at the beginning of 2024, no thanks, no complains from very many users with 6 files concerned. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam - Room 2.1 I started to sort the exhibtion hall with gallery above. Following the walls in an exhibion room clockwise is not arbitrary, what do you think. Perhaps I will add this question
— User:Oursana 00:14, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not think a gallery section at the top of a category page is what people had in mind here, let alone sorted specifically by clockwise position. You think this is not arbitrary, but you are still making arbitrary choices, for example about the order (clockwise; why not anti-clockwise?) and what file to start with (the oldest? the northmost? other compass directions? from the entrance? etc.). If you have the urge to make a pretty display of images, create/use a separate gallery page, like Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. A non-rhetorical question to you, Oursana: if people start to remove arbitrary sortkeys, will you leave them be or are you going to revert their actions despite the entire discussion of the past weeks? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

To begin with the last, I doubt that people remove the sortkeys, but if I let it go, that's what I mostly did until now. Clockwise, right to left is European reading direction and this is how exhibitions are concepted, exhibition numbers go like that. So it would be a guide for people in the Rijksmuseum. Perhaps I remove it to an extra gallery page. I saw the integrated gallery with many other users, and mostly I prefer it. Start from the entrance, the oldest is nonsense, who knows, who cares. I take care of the Rijksmuseum gallery for 4y as I do for many galleries.--Oursana (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Oursana, it seems to me you are dodging the question, and whole point. Your answer is: "if I let go...", so maybe you will not? Because removing arbitrary sorting is something I occasionally do when I see it. Also, Commons categories are not exhibitions, their purpose is not to show or present files in any orderly manner, they are just a navigation tool like others we have. As others already said, Galleries are meant for this instead, and I see nobody complaining about galleries organization. Files in categories should not be arbitrary sorted, and if you do not aknowledge this, probably an admin action is needed. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a problem that we arew both no native English speakers, and your citation was wrong should have been "if I let it go" =if someone removes it, I will leave it as it is. That was what you experienced when you reverted the statue from the Ghent Museum.

Perhaps I will come here again, when I finish the Verrocchio exhibition. I disagree completely with commons navigation tools. Disappointing too much space for a tool space for a tool, and a bad one, you find nothing. So what is wrong to make it a tool and a presentation when users agree on the sort order. If everyone would use a file name in the museum with artist's Second name, first name and title, that would be running. But 500 files in the Royal Palace f Amsterdam is pretty useless. Therefore many people have a big problem with commons. We certainly must improve it. Battle between Dutch and Spanish Ships on the Haarlemmermeer by Hendrik Cornelisz. Vroom sorted before I sorted by obvious numeral sortley from 1-6 8 files in with 6 different file naming variants. There should be more talk about than about numeral sorting.Oursana (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There should be more talk about than about numeral sorting.

I think there is more interest from other editors in how broad your TBAN needs to be.

I didn't think it needed to go this far. I thought you would realise that there is clearly a consensus of resistance against this, and you could recognise that thus it shouldn't happen and so wouldn't. But that didn't happen. Instead you clearly continue to believe that your approach is right, anyone opposing you is wrong, and there is no room for any further discussion. You also clearly intend to keep pushing for this approach in any talk: spaces. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

If we could meet Oursana half-way with some contructive help to conserve instead of dismissing her years-long work, now just categorized as disruptive. Maybe it would be good to provide a solid idea how to keep her work by migrating her ordering by sortkey to galleries, by writing a script for her or something like that. In a gallery there is room for explanation, different headers, subtitles etc. Would this be possible? MenkinAlRire (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@MenkinAlRire: I already asked for documentation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

1 pic categories for people

I came across Commons:Suggested_category_scheme_for_people#Categories_for_specific_persons, and I read that as: if the person has a WP-article, you might as well make a Commons category for them, even if it's just one pic atm. So I've done that a few times, like Category:Jia Tolentino. Is this practice

• Hopefully helpful somehow, at least in the long run, or
• Mostly pointless? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• I've always taken the justification of categories as being the union (logical OR) of several conditions. If any one of these is met, that's enough. So these could be any of: number of items, inclusion in an obvious objective list (such as months), notability (WP existence, official lists such as en:listed buildings). Excluding them for failing SMALLCAT would be much lower priority. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Does Commons have a SMALLCAT? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: No COM:SMALLCAT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• SMALLCAT is often cited as a reason for deleting small categories. Policies don't have to exist, don't be silly! Just if enough people and an admin or two agree to act as if it does, that's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
• Small categories that are basically intersections of other categories are usually a liability, but a person is not basically an intersection. If a person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I'm fine with a category. Among other things, it creates a single place to bring together all appropriate parent categories, very convenient if we eventually get another picture of the same person. - Jmabel ! talk 20:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorting of Monet cats by Wildenstein Nr

@Zen 38: is sorting Monet cats by Wildenstein inventory number, e.g. Paintings by Claude Monet in Impressionismus. Die Sammlung Hasso Plattner. Die Sammlung Hasso Plattner. This is the first case for this sorting, this is not practised e.g. with van Gogh, or Mondrian or other. I oppose strong. I started a discussion on User talk:Oursana#Sorting of Monet cats by Wildenstein Nr, but we cannot get an agreement Oursana (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

That could be quite reasonable as a sort order in the right context. The point is (and the one you are so pointedly ignoring) that it's different to how you have been allocating sort numbers; these are an objective number, which has a real world existence outside Commons. Much as we might sort Mozart works by K number, these numbers have some degree of existence, and persistence, beyond that of a snapshot of Commons content on a single day. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion was and is to sort by artist's name, title, (museum, date -in ambigius cases). The sorting method by Wildenstein number is not declared. We have many gallery pages for the Wildenstein catalogue raisonné, so one should not use this undeclared sortkey on all other monet cats. Especially Paintings by Claude Monet in Impressionismus. Die Sammlung Hasso Plattner could be better sorted by inventory number of this collection. This one would aspect instead of Wildenstein. I started the discussion on my disk long before the other one was started.

The point is (and the one you are so pointedly ignoring). You stop immediately your agressions against me, this is PA and against AGF.--Oursana (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a question of context. In some categories, the artist's name or the work's title (if unambiguous) might be useful. In others, such as museum catalogues, the catalogue number is appropriate. We can apply many categories at once, sorting doesn't need to be the same. But (still) the point is that these externally existing numeric series are available if we want to use them.

You know where ANU is. You're already there, in the thread where there's now talk of blocking you for a very long time. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I basically agree with Andy Dingley. Sorting depends on the category. Yes for paintings in a museum , sorting by museum catalog number can be the best option. In other cases, finding a good, common reference number seems to me the best solution . Please have a look at Category:Water Lilies by Claude Monet : Monet has painted so many pantings with title "nymphéas" , including several in the same year. In this case, sorting by Wildenstein number is obviously the best option. As already discussed, the first risk when sorting by artist's name, title, (museum, date -in ambigius cases) is the ambiguity with original title/english title (Nymphéa ? Numphea? Water lilie? Waterlilie?). But I believe that we can find even cases where a museum owns several waterlilie paintinngs wpainted on same yrat... Zen 38 (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not ony a problem of sorting but of creating all the useless mini cats in the majority with 2-4 files. Now you see nothing with all files hidden. For me this should be forbidden, as it is in Commons:Categories#How to use categories. And for the cat names only by Wildenstein, we had once hundreds of the Louvre cats renamed, which were by inv. nr as intransparent and not approriate, this is an unwished fall back. Perhaps somebody finds the links. Oursana (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)