Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths

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

Category:Men with opened mouths[edit]

see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Women with opened mouths

It looks like the cat-opener retired; what do others think about the necessity for this and similar "open mouth" cats? If they are so indispensable, should they not use "open" better? E4024 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol delete vote.svg DeleteThe person who created this category caused a massive amount of problems across multiple projects with their careless creation of redirects and categories, this is just another example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were many, many more. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • revise the content - most of included photos contain not really open but just ajar (slighty open) mouths. --ŠJů (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Useless, delete all of the subcategories and brother categories Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete but we need to list all the subcategories and get rid of them individually. I don't see what needs to be revised. No one is objecting to whether the wrong images here; people debate the need for this category at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and would like to see a broader discussion of this sort of categories. As I recently mentioned on the Village pump, a photo I took of a reasonably prominent writer about music, File:Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg has had its categories modified over time so that it now has categories such as Category:Female human hair, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with opened mouths. These seem to me to be terribly objectifying categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree about the objectification issue. See the VP discussion. Brianjd (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Just as useful as Men by facial expression, Women by facial expression, etc. (and other subcategories), which are just as useful as Men by posture, Women by posture, etc. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All of which I would consider problematic, at least when applied to photos that were intended simply as portraits of identifiable individuals. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      How does stating a facial expression violate personal rights? Trade (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Trade: It's not rights in legal sense; it's a matter of a human being described in terms that overly focus on their appearance rather than who they are (an object rather than a subject). If we could somehow confine categories like this to images of performance, I'd have no problem with them, but in practice we can't. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Concerning the assertion that this is about a «human being described», I think it’s not. This is about describing media files, in this case, photos. (Are any of these categories applied to categories about people? That’s would be wrong in most cases — except stuff like this one.) In an ideal world devoided of weirdos and creeps, there should be no fuss over this the same way there’s no fuss about Category:Rail vehicles with open doors.
        That said, I often get a weird feeling when photos of people in Commons are categorized in great detail concerning posture and looks while lacking categories about, say, time and place and other event context — or when of several people depicted one (often, a woman) got disproportionately more attention from the detailed categorizer. However that issue should be dealt with by reaching out tho the editors (mis?)using the categories, not by deleting the categories.
        (Not to mention when this kind of potentially problematic categories are misused — as when this one is applied to a group photo where only one mouth is open. However, as in any other case of miscategorization, it should be corrected where occurring, not by deleting the misused category itself.)
        -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Tuvalkin I agree with everything you said in the first two paragraphs.
        But applying this category to a group photo where only one mouth is open (and that mouth belongs to a man) is consistent with normal practice, at least in my experience (if we wanted photos with multiple opened mouths, then it should be something like ‘Groups of men/people with open mouths’). If we now regard that as miscategorization, we need to discuss that too. Brianjd (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Pinging @Jmabel. Brianjd (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        It's much harder to tell the location and time from a photo than it is an individual's facial expression or appearance. It's not surprising that the later is far more used. Trade (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I still say that these categories are problematic at best. If kept, should be confined to things that are in some sense a deliberate visual performance (an actor on a stage, a figure in a painting that is not specifically someone's portrait, someone in a parade, etc.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • E.g. it might be right to use appearance-focused categories for an essentially anonymous person in a parade, but I think they become extremely inappropriate when applied to portraits of notable people. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Is it really any different what image hosting sites like Flickr does? Trade (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Jmabel Are you saying that it is OK to objectify people as long as they are essentially anonymous? Even if we set aside the objectification issue, you are still saying that it is OK to draw attention to an essentially anonymous person, but not OK to draw attention – at least in this way – to people who are already the main focus of the image. That does not seem right. Brianjd (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Brianjd Are they? There are twenty-five subcategories in Category:Joe Biden by posture and twenty-two ways of splitting Category:Kamala Harris by posture because I assume those have been the most thoroughly diffused but are people really looking through the pictures of Kamala Harris we have on Commons and going down the tree into the five variations of her standing because they can't find the particular image of her standing a particular way they want? This feels like categorization for the sake of creating categories and in the end you lose out on the generic photographs of Harris because it's all within layers of categorization. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ricky81682 Given that many of these subcategories have hundreds of files, and some have over a thousand files, maybe this diffusion is a good thing. Anyway, all the ones I checked were created by Missvain; perhaps they would like to comment here.
    Also, we have tools like PetScan to extract useful information from layers of categorisation. Not working for you? Then let’s improve those tools instead. Brianjd (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Useless category. We should delete this and similar categories. The hyper-categorization has gotten out of hand. Nosferattus (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as per others above. Yann (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, per Brianjd. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2021/05/Category:Men_with_opened_mouths&oldid=724254583"