Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/10/Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name

Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name

The "Photographs of" naming convention is usually used for categories like Category:Photographs of Germany, to contain photographs grouped by characteristic (black and white, panoramics, etc.). Should this category be renamed to something like "Men of Japan by name in photographs" and the subcategories renamed to "<name> in photographs"? Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason not to make it the same as the other sub-categories of Category:Men by name by country ? ie. leave out the word "photographs" entirely. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a reason. I spot checked a few of the subcats, and they were all also subcats of categories for the person. (For example, Category:Photographs of Hamao Arata is a subcat of Category:Hamao Arata.) In other words, the subcats here seemed to be specifically to separate photos of each person from other things in the person's category. I would think the nominated category should reflect that. Of course, maybe the contents of the subcats should just be upmerged to the person's main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that as well, but I'm not sure why this is so common for Japanese men. There are 93 Japanese men that need a special "Photographs of" sub-category, but only 52 other men in the whole word (in Category:Photographs of men by name) that require it? Kind of strange. In some categories, the main person category is split into "Person X in art" and "Photographs of person x", which seems legitimate enough, though we generally assume photographs as the standard and only other media is sub-categorized by medium. In some cases, the main person category is also contains sub-categories for family members, and I'm not sure if we have a policy on that. but in others (e.g. Category:Endō Kinsuke, Category:Hōjō Tokiyuki, Category:Hosokawa Junjirō) there's no other category, so this is an unnecessary extra layer. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@庚寅五月: , would you care to comment? We're a bit confused. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 庚寅五月 who created many subcategories about Japanese men. Basically, I created the categories "Category:Photographs of <name>" to distinguish between the photographs of the subject person and the other files (works by subject person, works about the person, monuments or memorials to the person, etc), based on already existing Category:Photographs of John Quincy Adams, Category:Photographs of Richard Wagner etc. However, if the category Category:Photographs of men by name is useful, I think that its subcategories "Category:Photographs of <name>" are meaningful to create even if there is no media other than photographs.

The category name "Category:Photographs of <name>" is based on Category:Photographs of people and Category:Photographs of men. Similarly, there are categories Category:Paintings of people and Category:Prints of people. But for these category names, "Category:People in <medium>" may be preferable because category names don't become ambiguous when under-categories are created. The reason why "Category:Photographs of <name>" are the subcategories of "Category:<name> in art" is based on the fact that Category:Photographs and Category:Photographs of people are subcategories of Category:Art by medium and Category:People in art by medium.

Incidentally, this Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name is not created by me, but it seems that it was created to group the categories "Category:Photographs of <Japanese man>" which was also categorized into "Category:Men of Japan in art". I think that it is not absolutely necessary.--庚寅五月 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, 庚寅五月. I understand your logic, but if we used it more broadly, the number of categories on wikipedia would double overnight. In addition to Category:Hats, Category:Hats by color and Category:Red hats, we'd need Category:Photographs of hats, Category:Photographs of hats by color and Category:Photographs of red hats. Because the vast majority of the files on commons are photographs, it would create an unnecessary extra layer of empty categories, and wikipedia article would end up linking to empty commons categories. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, we don't need to create subcategories of photographs for all object categories, I don't intend to make such claims. But in the case of the person categories, not only the photographs of the subject person but also the various files related to that person are categorized therein (e.g. Category:Alexander Graham Bell, Category:Wright brothers). I think that it is meaningful enough to distinguish between the photographs of the subject person and the others files, in order not to clutter the person category. However, it might be more appropriate to use the names "Category:Portraits of <name>" or "Category:Portrait photographs of <name>" than "Category:Photographs of <name>" (e.g. Category:Portrait photographs of Albert Einstein, Category:Portrait photographs of Victoria of the United Kingdom).

If the files about the subject person are not found outside the portrait photographs (or simply portraits), we don't necessarily need to create subcategories. But if the categories "Category:Photographs of <name>" is the most basic subcategory in the person categories, I also think that it is better to create them as much as possible.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Portrait photographs of men by name. What about moving these there (and renaming them accordingly)? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they were all portrait photographs of each individual, which I don't think they are. See this one of Ichirō Hatoyama, this one of Itō Hirobumi and this one of Uchimura Kanzō, just to mention a few. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but 庚寅五月 could go through and ensure that they are all portraits. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images categorized into subcategories of Category:Photographs of men of Japan by name are actually just portrait photographs (images that don't show the appearance of subject person, such as File:State funeral of Kinmochi Saionji.JPG or File:The Triumphal Return of Admiral Togo From the Sea of Japan.jpg, are probably not categorized), so I have no objection to renaming subcategories.

In the cases shown by Auntof6, I think that these images can be categorized into "Category:Portrait photographs of <name>" because the appearance of subject person is shown although the scanned image isn't clear.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A portrait photograph is not just a photograph that shows the person. It is a photograph whose purpose is to be a portrait. en:Portrait defines portrait as "a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant." This is why we have separate portrait categories for various representations of people (photographs, paintings, etc.). I think we stretch the definition to include more than just the face (such as this one), but I don't believe the group pictures or candid shots (such as this one) qualify. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my understanding was insufficient. I'm wondering if the distinction between portrait and non-portrait is clear (e.g. between Category:Family portrait photographs and Category:Group photographs of families), but I understood that photographs like File:Ito Hirobumi4.JPG, which it isn't clear whether the subject person was in front of the camera for shooting, shouldn't categorize into portrait. Besides that, I misunderstood that Category:Photographs of men by name was integrated into Category:Portrait photographs of men by name, but confirmed that this was not the case. So I withdraw the previous comment.--庚寅五月 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]