Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/11/Category:Male toplessness in photography

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Male toplessness in photography

[edit]

Since all images we deal with here are "photographs" of some form, this category seems particularly redundant. If the intention is to distimguish between pictures taken with a camera and illustrations, it would seem more sensible to categorize the latter since we have fewer of those. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I think the intention of the creator of the cat was to give rise rather to a datebase of Commons' more "artistic" or "portrait"-style semi-nude photos. Obviously, as well-put by the initiator of this thread, the more casual ones don't need and shouldn't have a designated category, and clearly I agree with the basic point made above --- but before discarding the category altogether, better review the alternative of re-naming it, as (optionally) Category:Male toplessness in photographic art or Portrait photographs of topless men. Be my guests considering this comment as a rename proposal, and obviously, if accepted, it will rule the female counterpart as well as the parent category:Toplessness in photography (which may by itself ideed qualify for dismantlement). Orrlingtalk 16:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After viewing many other pages I'm even more keen on regularizing the "Photographs of-" set, as it really becomes more outstandingly awkward in its unclear usage and purpose altogether the more you browse; as a basic point it must be somehow agreed that photographs are WikiCommons' default media, and in this light "Photographs of xxx" cats shouldn't be created unless they aim at recognizable genres or image types e.g "Black and white photographs", "Photographic portraits" or "Low-angle shots" and are accordingly titled.

I do vote Delete. on all the following "general" categories that appear to be in-practice duplicating the Commons categorization system:

Orrlingtalk 12:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria from {{Photographs}} should apply? If there are not many such photos in these categories, then there's no need for them to exist. --ghouston (talk)
It also seems like the categories like Photographs of <subject> should be meta categories, with subcategories for the photographic categories of interest. --ghouston (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is different, and is very basic; the point is that any category that is "Category:Photographs of XYZ" should be dismantled with its content recategorized at "Category:XYZ". —Except files matching specific photographic imagetypes or techniques, which go in relevant subcats. There virtually can't be any place nor justification for mere "Categories:Photographs of XYZ" (being the defaultive media here). Orrlingtalk 01:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct point. But Except files matching:

{{Photographs}}

--Pierpao.lo (listening) 23:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This header is worth nothing. Subcategories need to be aptly named (e.g artistic techniques), not rely upon headers. Orrlingtalk 00:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various categories with CFDs redirected to this CFD were discussed from December 2012 until December 2013. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2012/11/Category:Male_toplessness_in_photography&oldid=210706382"