Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/06/Category:Human beings, by chronological age

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Add {{subst:cfd}} on the category page
  • Notify the creator of the category with {{subst:cdw|Category:Human beings, by chronological age}}--~~~~
  • On the log, add:
    {{Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/06/Category:Human beings, by chronological age}}
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Human beings, by chronological age[edit]

I'd like to bring to your attention a string of recently created categories, mainly related to Anatomy, which have the doubtlessly laudable aim of separating humans from animals. As far as I can see these are mainly the work of a single contributor, Lx 121. I have several concerns, including:

  • Such a far-reaching recategorisation would be better discussed and agreed upon first, then a bot could do most of the work. I've seen a number of well-meaning personal projects such as this abandoned before completion which leaves us with yet another mess to clear up.
  • The names given to some of these categories are not always helpful. In particular, the unneccessary use of the comma, e.g. Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, which contains sub-cats such as Category:Human anatomy, by chronological age, by component and Category:Human anatomy, 10 year old, male. Who on earth is going to remember that, even if they spend a fair amount of time on these categories? (Which I don't, as a rule).
  • The (potential) extent of these sub-cats if/when applied to related categories, such as Art, will increase the burden on editors and severely tax their patience.

I'm sure that the intention is good but am concerned - as a mere amateur who occasionally strays into these areas, mainly because I have an interest in art - that the task of finding suitable categories will become impossibly difficult with the result that many people simply won't bother. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Related categories, tagged:

More to be added later but this is enough to be going on. Anatiomaros (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one, which I somehow missed. A real "gem":
Contains subcategories, unfortunately! Anatiomaros (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

with respect: i don't care what naming style is used, as long as it it clear, specific (disambitugated), & searchable

the "naming conventions" in place @ wmc currently are: a) chaotic c) NOT being implemented in any coherent, systematic manner & b) inadequate for organizing our database.

as for the specificity of categories; commons is a media repository, i.e.: a catalogue of files.

not a gallery

not a "picture album"

to properly serve the project's intended purpose, we NEED to have our file sorted as precisely as posssible, & covering as comprehensive a range of topics (as per scope) as possible.

(written in haste, i'm on vacation right now, will write more/better, when i'm back @ commons with more time availlable)

Lx 121 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • These categories (or similarly named ones) have come up in other discussions. I only see Lx 121, the creator, defending them. The naming of them is terrible and follows no established conventions. They just seem like a bunch of nouns and adjectives separated by commas. They're not even consistent between themselves: "Human anatomy, 10 year old, male", "Human anatomy, male, age 19", "Human anatomy, preadolescent, male"??? Seriously, why "Male human genitalia, by component: scrotum and testes" when it could be something like "Human scrotum and testes"? It's not just the names, some of these categories are way too narrow and are over-categorization. They were created without consensus, so the best thing is too simply put them in more appropriate categories, rename any worth keeping (which seems to be happening). Lx, as a friendly suggestion, I think you should consider working on some galleries instead. They seem more suited to the very specific organization you're aiming for. For example, you can create a page for some body part and organize it in countless ways. we NEED to have our file sorted as precisely as posssible No, we don't. We should have our files sorted to a level that makes sense. We could create a separate category for each image if we really wanted to be as precise as possible. Rocket000 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree absolutely with all these comments by Rocket000. With all due respect to Lx 121, if we were to adopt similar category names right across Commons we would end up with such monstrosities as "Bridgend, County Council; rivers of" and "American, male, human, adolescent (12-17), Caucasian (white), by state". Category names should be as simple as possible and make grammatical sense. I'm not sure if there are other similarily named categories still lurking in Anatomy and other categories as I gave up on trying to find them, but if there are they should be deleted, in my humble opinion. Anatiomaros (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Anatiomaros and Rocket000 in any points. Another problem is, that Lx 121 has apparently no academic knowledge of human anatomy and the result of it are useless categories like his comma-creations without - mostly - encyclopedic value. Nevertheless he keeps on understanding himself as the expert in these fields and he is willing to defend his "creations" quite aggressively - unfortunately. I support the deletion of these categories: "Category:Human anatomy, preadolescent, male" and "Category:Human anatomy, adolescent, male". --High Contrast (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you High Contrast. About time they went. I've just found another one which I've added above. These names are farcical and make a mockery of Commons. Anatiomaros (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Another classic: Category:Human nudity (has been redirected to Category:Nudity). Naked animals! What next? Anatiomaros (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with anatomy, but is a good example of the absurd and totally impracticable category names created by Lx 121. Thankfully it is only a red link to several files at the moment, but we may well soon be treated with this monster: 'Category:Hayami Shungyōsai (速水春暁斎, Japanese, *1767, †1823)'. For God's sake, what is wrong with using the simple and obvious 'Category:Hayami Shungyōsai', which already exists, as you can see? Maybe the intention is to redirect that to his intended new category? One has to wonder just what logic is at work here and how much more of this we will have to suffer. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
LOL. That's all can I do is laugh, otherwise I'll cry. Rocket000 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's another fun one: Category:Japanese "encyclopedia" of 1792 (proper title unknown/pending identification), scan set of the book (W-uk/bk-01). Rocket000 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Catchy! Clear, precise and easy to find and remember (Not!). As you say, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry! Anatiomaros (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a category name includes typos and other mistakes seems to mean nothing either. For instance, Category:Ryūtei Tanehiko(柳亭種彦), which I've just redirected to Category:Ryūtei Tanehiko (after creating it). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
More fun to come: Category:Ukiyo-e calendar 2010, bought at Daiso chain store in Japan, image set of object ([1]). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and recategorized the files in the "by stage of development" categories. I left the "by subject-person depicted" ones for now due to this DR (but there was also this), but I still don't think we should have categories that group together certain body parts of Commons users... There's also Category:Human anatomy, by gender, which doesn't warrant a separate category from the main category I don't think (there's only so many genders, and "gender" vs "sex" is good to avoid when talking biology), and other "comma-creations" that aren't listed above so I'll leave this DR open. Rocket000 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, Rocket000. I hadn't realised that 'Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted' was subject of another DR. Still think the name sucks, whatever the arguments for or against the category. It seems to have been populated mainly by Lx 121 and includes 'Category:Human anatomy, set of subject 11', created by him and now containing only a single file (there was originally 2, but that still doesn't make for much of a "set"). Totally agree with you that the "by gender" cat is pointless (as well as irritating because of the superfluous comma!). Anatiomaros (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, as impractical. Category:Human anatomy, by subject-person depicted, was subject of a deletion request and kept. To discuss it, open a new request. --rimshottalk 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)