Category talk:People reading

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:People by posture

[edit]

[people] looking [direction]

[edit]
Softball player looking left. Or is that right?

In "[people] looking [direction]", does the direction refer to the viewer or the subject? For example, this softball player is looking to her left but to the viewer's right. Which category should it go in? Looking at the existing categorisation, there seems to be some disagreement. Brianjd (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i'd say it makes more sense to categorise this example photo as people looking to the left. imagine asking a question, "where is the person looking at?" the more natural answer for me is "she's looking to the left" / "she turns her head to the left".--RZuo (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was a more recent CfD that got into the nitty-gritty of categorizing by direction of facing, looking, etc.: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:People looking downward
I think this portion of this CfD should be subsumed into that discussion. Josh (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


up or down doesnt depend on the perspective, but left or right is mirrored if we switch perspectives between the person and the camera.--RZuo (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply move categories to e.g. "People looking to their left" and so on without leaving redirects. It's ambiguous. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[people] [doing something] or [doing something] [people]?

[edit]

two problems:

  1. it's not consistent to describe a person doing an action. under "People by posture" it's mostly "doing people", except for expressions that cannot be written this way, e.g. Category:People looking forward. but in another cat tree Category:People by facial expression it's mostly "people doing" (Category:Smiling people was only moved in 2020). and in Category:People by activity it's overwhelmingly "people doing".
  2. when the verb is a transitive verb, the format "doing people" is confusing. for example, Category:Saluting women is now a category for women that are saluting, but the expression itself sounds like it's a cat for all incidences of "people saluting women", for example, if someone inspects female soldiers and does the saluting gesture.

for clarity i think it should all be moved to "people doing something".--RZuo (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Licking animals, without looking inside the cat, do you know whether it contains animals which are licking something, or animals being licked? RZuo (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: I agree and there are no objections so does the following seem appropriate:
I didn't get every single one, but this is the idea anyway. Any objections? Josh (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think we can keep Category:Recumbent people. it's a tricky category to deal with. there're also several kinds of lying down (face/belly up or down or sideways).
i think opinions from more people are needed for this particular category.--RZuo (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: I agree, that was the one that gave me a bit of pause, mainly because it didn't have an obvious 'people' 'acting' (people recumbing? no.) Anyway, happy to drop that one from the group. We can always revisit it in the future with its own discussion. Josh (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions Rename category (for 8 listed for change above--not including Recumbent people)
Participants
Closed by Josh (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This resolution is only for the second section of this CfD, first section above is still open at the moment. Josh (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Reading_people

[edit]

This looks redundant to the parent category Category:Reading Martin H. (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, on second thought this impression possibly comes from the incompleteness. Most of the content from Category:Reading is related to people reading and belongs to this subcategory, maybe its 99% of the "reading" topic that will belongs to "reading people", so maybe the category is not redundant but does it make sense to separate the majority of the content? --Martin H. (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made it just two months ago to have the possibility to subcat it to "People by activity". However, I had not the time to push all files down to the new category. And probably I did it not right away to first wait for comments like "what a useless category did you create there?!". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with adding "people" is that afterwards users tend to differentiate "people" by gender, occupation, age instead of subcategorizing the topic "reading" properly. --  Docu  at 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ..But all those categories (e.g. reading men) are a subcategory of reading - so these files would be in "reading" (as they are in a sub category). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but Category:Reading books, Category:Reading newspapers, Category:Reading Wikipedia seem more interesting than Category:Reading men ..
An the other hand, even if you want to build Category:Reading books, Category:Reading newspapers, etc, it helps when images are already available in some category with "reading" in its name. --  Docu  at 19:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, reading by medium (book, newspaper, screen, ...) would be useful, too.
Well - that is a general problem of our cat system in cats where there are several "by" subcategories. Sometimes files get pushed down one subcat tree but are not inserted also in the other subcat tree. But the solution is not to forbid several subcat trees. It would be better to (maybe via bot) add the main cat of the second subtree if one file is moved just to one subtree. E.g. a file which is in 'reading' is moved to 'reading men' Then a bot could add 'reading by unidentified medium' to the file (maybe the "unidentified" could be omitted).Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. To some extend it can be done by CatScan2. Personally I mainly use search for that, but this would be a way more accessible to most users.
BTW, I went ahead and created Category:Reading newspapers just to discover that we got Category:Newspaper readers as subcategory of Category:readers ;)
Looking at Category:Reading men, I think there are some other subcategories of Category:Reading that might be missing: Category:Reading in bed, Category:Reading in the metro (or "in Rapid transit").
At Reading people, Category:Reading to babies and children does seem more helpful than Category:Reading males. --  Docu  at 03:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
Catscan2 - who uses catscan? ;) Few people who know how to operate it. We are happy if people do know how to categorize. Such a bot thing would be really worth a try / some thoughts. But - as always - I cannot (well, I could with much time effort since I had never run a bot but know how to program) and do not have the time currently.
Hmm.. "Readers" - good catch! But it is a sub category of "People by association" and, honestly, I do not know what should belong in there. Yes, some subcategories are more useful than others. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For categories where there are several independent "by .." subtrees, the bot could copy the files from one to the other. It could even add them directly into the other "by" category, thus allowing to move them further down. However, sometimes not all files be categorized by both criteria and some files shouldn't be in one of the categories in the first place. Thus it might need to be a tool that works "on demand", just like CatScan2 ..
Re "readers", maybe we should try to everything that can be moved to "reading people" and just leave what remains. --  Docu  at 05:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - sometimes a file does only belong into one subtree. The problem about "on demand" is that only some users will use it. If we had a bot which acts like described above more people will contribute to this work since they see there are files which need to be categorized deeper into this subtree. This discussion is a bit wrong here. But - honestly - I do not have the spare time currently to really make up my mind about a good mechanism.
Readers: Sure - that was my original intend with this category. I will do some files now. Sadly this stupid Catalot does break operation at about 6 files everytime. I have to use hotcat (the good part: I can also check/improve the other cats in the same edit). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about the bot idea. I think it could work well with fairly stable structures. BTW Strange your problems with catalot: works fine for me.

← Oh .. and: What about to create a subtree "Category:Reading by medium" (Category:Reading books, Category:Reading newspapers, Category:Reading Wikipedia, ...)? But what to do with Category:People with books? How to differentiate/define? With "see also cat" and:

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add Category:People with books where it applies too and keep all "people with foobar" separate. --  Docu  at 07:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, okay, separate and see also in the cats' heads.
"File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - United through Reading.jpg"
So, do you agree that e.g. File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - United through Reading.jpg should have those categories? Category:Reading females, Category:Reading books, Category:Females with books
Btw: Don't you want to merge your two duplicate newspaper categories? ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For "File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - United through Reading.jpg" I'd use Female soldiers, Reading books, People with books, but I don't mind if you use the other ones (e.g. some sort of Category:Reading people). Not sure if "people with foobar" needs a gender, I'd use Category:People with children's books instead.
If I understood the description of the image correctly, it might also need Category:Reading aloud or Category:Reading (aloud) for recording.
For Category:Reading newspapers I thought of making it a subcategory of Category:newspaper readers.  Docu  at 09:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC), 10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
Okay, we essentially have the same categories for this example image (I did not list Female soldiers here since it is not related to reading).
@"Not sure if "people with foobar" needs a gender": we have Category:Females with objects. So this makes sense.
I have created Category:Reading by medium and Category:Reading books now.
For People with children's books: feel free to create it as a subcategory of People with books. Category:Reading (aloud) for recording seems not useful to me. These will not be much pictures and most commonly you do not see the microphone. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new cats look good.
I listed Female soldiers as at some point one should add a category for the gender of the person.
Category:Reading (aloud) for recording might not be that useful, but I think we need some category like Category:Reading aloud or Category:Reading to others that could be a parent category to Category:Reading to babies and children.
A problem I see with Category:Females with objects is that it complicates describing the object (We don't need to discuss this here though). --  Docu  at 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if mixing "reading books" together with "book reading techniques" is ideal as they don't illustrate reading books as such. Maybe Category:Book readers could be a parent to some of the subcategories added to Category:Reading books. --  Docu  at 13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reading to others sounds good for me. Sadly I cannot fine a good second super category for it. Something like Category:Addressing others or Category:Presenting.
What do you mean by "I'm not sure if mixing "reading books" together with "book reading techniques""? I do not understand.
What do you think of a subcategory of Category:People with books and Category:Reading books: Category:People with books and reading in them (or a similar name)? It would simplify the categorization of images. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. I will create Category:Reading to others then.
2. I had in mind Category:Map reading (not "reading maps") as subcategory of Category:Reading by medium and the somewhat similar Category:Bible reading (as a subcategory of Reading books) as well as Category:World Book Day. At least in Category:World Book Day in Helsinki 2010 just 1 of 19 shows someone reading a book. Maybe the situation is similar for the other two categories (Map reading, Bible reading).
3. I have to think about that one. Seems somewhat complex --  Docu  at 12:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ah - I see. Well, most pictures we have are just people who are holding xyz and reading in it. So the content for the technique of "map reading" will be very small - but - yes, do it if you think it is useful. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say your new categories Category:Reading when standing and ...walking should be renamed to Category:People reading when standing (the a subcat of Reading people by position (which would be a nice subcat of People by position)). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of liked Category:reading when walking ;). I don't think we need Category:Reading when sitting. Personally, I'm fine with the current category names. This avoids ending up with "Females reading when standing". --  Docu  at 12:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humm, well - okay. ;-) But without a clear connection to "people" they can only be subcats of Reading which means then I need to add to a fictive file: Category:Reading when standing and a subcat of "Standing people".
However - both catgories should be in a "by" category, I'd say. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, the original problem seems to have been resolved and the category scheme well-developed. For detail problems, for example a common parent for Category:Reading when walking and Category:Reading when standing, open a new discussion if needed. --rimshottalk 22:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:People_reading&oldid=902257031"