Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/05/Category:Close-ups of insects
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think the title of the category is not at all clear. What is a close up of an insect?
- simply every good photo? - You have to come very close to an insect to make a good photo!
- Photos of body parts? They are usually listed in the Anatomy-Categories
- Microphotos of Insects?
- This category is a part of the category tree Category:Close-ups of animals and Category:Close-ups which seems to be established and widely accepted. --ŠJů (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I look at it I think it is a wonderful category for Brick walls and other things, which are not alife. For animals it is not helpful, because everything body part you could categorice there has its owm name within morpholoy and anatomy of animals, which is a better category for the picture. --Kersti (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- ŠJů: if it's "established and widely accepted", then were are the rules? What makes a photograph "a closeup"? (I'd argue that "close-up" is primarily about angle of view, which should be wide enough to qualify, but then it's an opinion). How close should it be to qualify? it's just too subjective to be practical. NVO (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- As a rule-of-thumb, we might start with "so close you can discern single hairs/feather rays/...". We might limit it to non-wholebody content, but I believe this would leave out a whole bunch of good and true close-up photos.
- The category tree is nice so far. I wouldn't touch it. It more likely needs a fat "POPULATE" sign, all of it. There should literally be dozens if not 100s images in these categories, from what I have seen (the "birds" part is not even remotely full, and that's saying something... if the bird part sucks on Commons, it's usually not a good sign ;-) ). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Idea: is it possible perhaps to have them put some categories on the start page, which casual users are asked to populate? It would be ideal for this, we'd simply get an average interpretation of "close-up" and then we'll see where it makes sense to draw the line.
- The only thing we would have to do in such a case is sort the spiders out of the insects ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another thing: we should start to build an "Insects" tree down from Category:Microscopic images relating to animals. Ultimately as subtree of "Close-ups" (which it certainly is), but it's a different class of imagery altogether wouldn't you say? (There is a lot of content in and around Category:Scanning_electron_microscopic_images). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)