This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For Discussion - I don't believe any named men should be under this category, only photos. For example Category:Jan Peter Balkenende, in the category are photos, signatures and audio clips. In the photos he has glasses, his signature has nothing to do with him and glasses, nor does an audio clip. What do others feel about subcategories being under this category? or, just the photos? Mjrmtg (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, and anyway, people don't always wear them all their life or all the time. --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone User:Pigsonthewing isn't happy with the decision to only categorize photos with Category:Men with glasses, he keeps reverting when I try to add Category:Men with glasses of photos of him with glasses, like File:Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013 Award ceremony 04.jpg, File:QSMM GLAM 3177.JPG, File:Herbert Backstage Pass cmglee 65.jpg. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how categories work - and there's no need to flood watchlists. Andy Mabbett (me) *is* a "man with glasses". Not to mention that you're adding individual images of me - unusually - not wearing my glasses; and audio clips, to the category. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the photos of you and the audio clips from the category. I mass added everything tried to remove the ones without glasses. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No; you didn't. You removed some of them. Your edits are being disruptive. Stop it (but revert as requested on your talk page). Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, as I said, I missed removing Category:Men with glasses from some of your photos that do not have glasses in them. Your adding Category:Men with glasses to Category:Andy Mabbett is being disruptive. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are two different concepts about the logic of categories. While some categories are thought to describe constants (i.e. attributes which won't change, like place of birth) other categories are thought to describe variables (i.e. attributes which can change, like men with glasses). Although I'd appreciate a more consistent approach on categorisation, current implementation shows that this is not the case at all. If you look at categories with Category:Politicians with moustaches you'll most likely find pictures which don't show politicians with moustaches. I think the current approach tries to represent characteristics rather than what you actually see on an image. Still this might be a valid reason to establish a set of categories identifying what you actually see (e.g. Images of people wearing glasses). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons is a media server, and obviously, as can be seen in the subcategories, this category is reserved for portrait photos of men wearing glasses. Indeed, in Category:Men with sunglasses, the concept seems understood. Three quarters of the male population are wearing glasses from time to time, so categories of the people that wear glasses (from time to time) don't help for people that search for pictures of people wearing glasses. If people don't understand this simple concept, we'll have to rename the category indeed. --Foroa (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't wear glasses "from time to time". Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, there are only 60 % of the images in Category:Andy Mabbett and virtually none of the 1100 images its subcategories that are relevant for this category. --Foroa (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts for a compromise creation of Category:Andy Mabbett with glasses populated only with images in which he is wearing glasses that is a subcategory of Category:Andy Mabbett and Category:Men with glasses.--KTo288 (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please propose this, first, as a general policy for Commons categories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this category, "with" means that a man actually is with the glasses in the specific visual work, not that he merely owns glasses or occasionally wears them. If a man is always seen with glasses in all visual media, then maybe that man's name category should be in Category:Men with glasses for efficiency. But, if it's likely that there will be at least some publicly-accessable media of the man without glasses, then the two categories should be applied to each photo separately. If one searches all media in Category:Men with glasses and all of its subcategories, there should be no image of a man without glasses also in the image. An example of where the line is, in my opinion: Until 10 minutes ago, I would have said that Category:Harry Caray should be in Category:Men with glasses. Harry Caray was a sports announcer in the U.S., and eyeglasses were a prominent part of his identity. (You can do a Google Image Search for "Harry Caray" and you'll see.) I assumed that he had worn eyeglasses since an early age, and that I would never see a picture without them. But I did the image search and actually found one legitimate image of him without glasses: Here's Haray Caray without glasses, presumably in the 1940s at 1340 WCLS (now WJOL) in Joliet, Illinois. Whether he was required to take his glasses off for a professional photo at the time, or he just took them off normally at the time, I don't know. But, because of this photo, Category:Harry Caray shouldn't be in Category:Men with glasses, since there is at least one example of how Harry Caray might end up with a legitimate image without glasses on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your assertions have no substance. Also, I don't wear glasses "occasionally". Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about you specifically (or at all, to be honest); I was talking about what people expect to see when they encounter "with" on Commons. "Men and glasses" would be a awkward. "Men wearing glasses" would make sense, but then you end up with people being pedantic about people holding glasses in their hands instead of on their head for a moment. (No need to inform me whether a specific person holds glasses in his or her hands "for a moment".) I do understand that it gets complicated when we're dealing with a category that has subcategories whose direct subjects are not the parent category's direct subject. Category:Theodore Roosevelt is a subcategory of Category:Politicians with moustaches, and Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy is a subcategory of Category:Theodore Roosevelt, yet the things in Category:Theodore Roosevelt's taxidermy do not have moustaches. (I think that could be solved with a couple of technical changes or tags, but it would get hairy and take a lot of time.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about renaming to Category:Images of men with glasses or Category:Photographs of men with glasses? It's awkward, but it would be clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that categories of named men don't belong here (unless there are categories like "Adam Smith with glasses"). "Images of" or "Photographs of" would need to contain only subcategories, no files, as be subcategorized by characteristic. As far as the with/wearing question, I think "wearing" is clearer. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Auntof6: I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but it's not exactly an accurate representation of what we currently have. There are plenty of similar categories. Category:Photographs of men with books and Category:Photographs of standing men have both existed since 2012, and both of which contain a great number of individual files. But as I said elsewhere, I'm not determined to keep Category:Photographs of men with glasses if it's not helpful. It might, however, be worth sub-categorizing the 4000+ photographs it contains rather than dumping them all back into Category:Men with glasses but I can't think of how best to do it. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think this fits more into the Category:People wearing objects than Category:People with objects. Using "with" is accurate but imprecise. Do we even have any images of people with glasses who aren't wearing them?
- Besides all that, should we rename these categories to "eyeglasses" to distinguish from drinking glasses and other things called glasses? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Auntof6. A move to Category:Men wearing glasses (as opposed to "Men who wore glasses") could also eliminate the individual categories, no? If we do so, I don't think there's a need for "eyeglasses". Drinking glasses as already separated out at Category:People with drinking glasses and the "wearing" makes it clear we're not talking about drinking glasses anyway. Though, as Closeapple pointed out above, what do we do with images of men holding eyeglasses (if we have any) ? - Themightyquill (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We might create Category:Men holding glasses as well. I would argue the picture you link above is not a picture of a man any more than this is a picture of New York City. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking, we could also sub-divide by century, or even decade. Then it could join with the fashion categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly dislike the creation of intersection categories for things that are unrelated to each other. We'll end up with stuff like "21st century black and white photographs of adolescent men holding round glasses in Italy by name" – which might be useful if that's what you are actually looking for but very problematic if you want some other kind of intersection. I think with StructuredData finally picking up speed, we should move towards a flatter category structure in favour of easier on-the-fly intersections. --El Grafo (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @El Grafo: You think "Men with glasses" is too narrow a focus? I tend to agree with your argument, but this doesn't seem to be a good example. There are 87 sub-categories here and, if you include all the images in Category:Photographs of men with glasses, thousands of images in a relatively flat category. - Themightyquill (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there are enough images here to warrant this category's existence. However, it should only contain media which depicts men actively with glasses in the image. Categories for people who may be glasses-wearers like myself should not be included, even if the person is rarely found without glasses, because there is no limit that images in that category would include the person with their glasses. The category is not "men who usually wear glasses", but "men with glasses" which tells the user to expect each image to contain both a man and a pair a glasses in it. As for sub-cats that may be warranted, that is a natural outgrowth of the media that is found in this category, and I have no doubt there will be enough to warrant at least some categorization. We should remove the person categories and only categorize media here which contain both a man and a pair of glasses together in the image or video. Josh (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Strakhov: The same applies to Category:Men with beards ? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Themightyquill: IMHO yes, except maybe the distinction between "with beards" and "wearing beards" (?). If too much populated, the content may be categorised by century or similar (easy and lazy) or, much more meaningful (but harder), beard style. Strakhov (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove people by name categories: Upon assessing six years of discussion, I have concluded that there is an overwhelming amount of support to remove all categories of people by name from this tree structure. Ultimately, the participants of this discussion found that Category:Men with glasses, as well as other similar categories, should ultimately describe the contents of the media it categorizes and should not be utilized in people by name categories to describe physical characteristics of a particular individual that are not static and are subject to change. This conclusion does not forbid categorizing regular wearers of glasses, but it does not support using these types of categories to do so. The community should discuss how to implement such category for people by name categories because this specific category is not it. ℯxplicit 07:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
