File talk:X, 1980.jpg

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

Category discussion[edit]

IMO, this should be in the category Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). Quoting from COMMONS:ANU:

I don't think that it's necessarily wrong what Evrik is doing. Usually the name of a category should be taken literally when it comes to question what files to sort into. That means, if the category is named "Members of X (musical group from the United States)", then yes it's appropriate to add it to all files that depict members of X (musical group from the United States), be it one member, two, or all in one picture. Of course the ideal solution is to have separate categories for every member, which is not yet the case here, but please feel encouraged to create the missing categories. If that is done, then definitely pictures showing members should be in the relevant member's categories while the Category:X (musical group from the United States) should serve merely as parental category and, if available, for files related to the band but not showing its members. For example, File:X on 2016-11-28.jpg should be in Category:Concerts of X (musical group from the United States) (which it already is), and in the four categories for the persons depicted (which is still lacking). --A.Savin 21:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would thus like this to be moved to Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). Having it in both categories would violate COMMONS:OVERCAT. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, photos of a band are placed in Category:Band and photos of individual members are placed in Category:Members of Band. If we want to change that, then that is a larger systemic conversation than this single image. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of another band? I would point out that this is an images members of the band. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Category:R.E.M. or Category:Eels (band) prior to me breaking it up by year. Collages, group shots, etc. that have multiple band members are routinely in the main category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a category is currently sorted as is, this doesn't necessarily mean it's a desirable or consensusal solution. As for Category:R.E.M., surely more diffusion would be useful, such as "Montages of R.E.M.", "Videos of R.E.M.", "Places connected with R.E.M." and the like. The current condition, with 38 unsorted files of which many have a rather unobvious reference to R.E.M. to say the least, is neither sufficient nor desirable. --A.Savin 12:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a perfectly plausible scheme that is applied across Commons, but it isn't currently and in practice, what is done is what is consistent here. As I already stated, I'm happy to have some kind of larger discussion about how these categories operate, but this single talk page is not the venue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, your protestations of an undesirable category for this image is a subjective one, only raised by yourself. There are now two of us saying that the image is better in Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States) and a wider cross-section of Commons has had the opportunity to weigh in here from COMMONS:ANU. The only action for consensus is that a wider discussion about category structure amongst all bands would be helpful, but by and large the majority believes the category this image should be in is Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States).
Aafi, could you make a decision either way as you have protected the page? If you can give advise for how to get more participants into this discussion this may have some bearing, of course. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My "protestations of an undesirable category for this image is a subjective one"? What objective protests are there in principle? I'm just pointing out what I've seen in practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t provide examples of where you stated that “Generally, photos of a band are placed in Category:Band and photos of individual members are placed in Category:Members of Band.”
You provided two examples: Category:R.E.M. and Category:Eels (band). In the R.E.M. category, there are multiple images of individual band members in the base category, and one collage in the base category. In the Eels category, there are no images in the base category, only subcategories. IMO, that fails to show evidence of the broader convention you claim, and thus I have to conclude that the claim you are making is somewhat subjective. There are no objective reasons provided other than a claim of existing convention (which I feel you have not demonstrated), and objectively the category “Members of band” would not in any way be misleading anyone if it showed this image - with the members of the band X in one photo.
I am still willing to be convinced otherwise as to the validity of your claims, but the arguments put forward so far have not done so. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. It would be really nice if you did.
You seem to have it confused here: there are no examples of band shots of R.E.M. in Category:Members of R.E.M.. That is what I wrote before, not that there are no images of individual members in Category:R.E.M. This is the actual equivalent to what we are talking about here. In fact, can you find any examples of full band shots where it's in "Category:Members of foo"? I don't know of any precedent for this.
Also, it seems like you again did not read what I wrote, which is that I recently diffused Category:Eels (band) to Category:Eels (band) by year but prior to that, images of the band in general were in Category:Eels (band) and shots of individual members were in categories like Category:Mark Oliver Everett, which itself was a subcategory of Category:Eels (band) (there is no container for band members). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I wasn’t aware you did that, or I misunderstood what you wrote. It is unclear, then, how that category is relevant to this discussion as it doesn’t have a Category:Members of The Eels. Can you clarify how Category:Eels (band) demonstrates that “ Generally, photos of a band are placed in Category:Band and photos of individual members are placed in Category:Members of Band”?
In terms of there being no group shots of members of REM in Category:Members of R.E.M., I might be mistaken but I see no group shots in Category:R.E.M..
My objective argument is that a group shot of a band show the members of the band, which would logically mean they go into Category:Members of band. I actually did state that in my answer, sorry if I was not as clear as I could have been.
I would like to point out that providing two examples to demonstrate consistency with a particular standard when there are hundreds of categories of bands is not terribly persuasive. Perhaps you could provide some other examples?
It does look like the structure needs discussing, but currently the issue at hand is whether this image should go into Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). Currently you are the only one arguing that this should not be the case and three others (including myself) are arguing this is the most appropriate place for the image. That seems to be consensus. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you clarify how Category:Eels (band) demonstrates that “ Generally, photos of a band are placed in Category:Band and photos of individual members are placed in Category:Members of Band”?" Because, as I have written twice now, prior to me creating the scheme at Category:Eels (band) by year, group shots were in Category:Eels (band) and photos of individual members were in categories like Category:Mark Oliver Everett.
"I see no group shots in Category:R.E.M." There are several. E.g.:
I sincerely don't know how the two things above are confusing to you. I'm having a very hard time communicating here.
"I would like to point out that providing two examples to demonstrate consistency with a particular standard when there are hundreds of categories of bands is not terribly persuasive. Perhaps you could provide some other examples?"
In fact, take a look at Category:Musicians by musical group: almost always you will see only subcategories and almost never files. There are literally hundreds of examples. Does this not convince you that "Members of foo" is not used for images of the band at large? Try to find any examples where this is done. I can find hundreds where it's not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find hundreds where it is not, then it should hopefully be easy to provide examples. I don't think I'm asking for too much. Responding to "as I have written twice now, prior to me creating the scheme at Category:Eels (band) by year, group shots were in Category:Eels (band) and photos of individual members were in categories like Category:Mark Oliver Everett." - if this was the case, then why did you change the category structure? And why are you not following the category structure used by apparently hundreds of band categories?
In terms of Category:Eels (band), you originally stated that "Generally, photos of a band are placed in Category:Band and photos of individual members are placed in Category:Members of Band". I then asked you for some examples where this was the case. You then used the band Eels as an example. This does not have a category "Category:Members of Eels" and apparently never has, so I am similarly confused why you point to them as an example (and still do!).
In terms of the R.E.M. photos, thank you for showing the examples. But I look at File:Mike_Mills,_Michael_Stipe,_and_Bill_Rieflin,_2008.jpg and I note that this is in the categories Category:Mike Mills, Category:Michael Stipe and Category:Bill Rieflin but these are sub-categories of Category:Members of R.E.M., which is a sub-category of Category:R.E.M.. This creates a category with cycles, and COMMONS:OVERCAT specifically states "Don't place an item into a category and its parent.". Yet that is what is happening here, so this is not really a very good example. I note that File:R.E.M. with Linda Hopper, 2003.jpg does the same thing.
Then I look at File:R.E.M. (25).JPG and this shows a similar photo to band members playing in concert as File:Mike_Mills,_Michael_Stipe,_and_Bill_Rieflin,_2008.jpg which places them into band member subcategories, and yet this image does not do so. So if you are arguing from consistency, then images from the category you provide examples are not actually consistent in their categorisation, which I feel rather undermines your argument. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely cannot help you if you reuse to click on this link: Category:Musicians by musical group. See how you will see over and over and over again "[title] (x C)" and only rarely "[title] (x C, y F)". In other words, virtually all categories do not have files in them and they are only subcategories. Examples include:
Is that enough examples? Shall I move on to "B"? As you can easily see, 90%+ are only categories and not individual files, which is the point I have made over and over again. It's mind-boggling here. Allow me to state it a 278th time: "Category:Members of X" do not contain files, but subcategories in virtually all cases. Are you now convinced that is true or shall I continue posting a few hundred more examples out of the 700+?
"why did you change the category structure?" To diffuse by year, which is also an extremely common thing to do here on Commons. (No, I will not provide you hundreds of examples.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chris.sherlock2: I have just left a note at Commons:Village pump#Categorisation - this discussion needs wider input, and asked for a wider reasonable participation. ─ Aafī (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aafi, that seems very reasonable. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that is a completely different category structure. You are arguing for consistency but not following a particular consistent category structure yourself. I don’t feel you have provided a sufficient argument for why this shouldn’t be in Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). I respect your work in categorisation, but I feel it would make more sense to move the file. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be there because it's not consistent with how other categories are done. Can you give an example of a category and file system that is similar to this one? (I also asked this in my last post.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot, but I’ve never made that claim. You are the one who has made this claim. The absence of a consistent standard implies that we are more free to place images where they make most sense, and in this case this image is actually a photo of the members of X, so therefore it would be appropriate to place the image in Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States).
The only argument against this was the one you made which was “Generally, photos of a band are placed in Category:Band and photos of individual members are placed in Category:Members of Band”, but you haven’t demonstrated this to be the case even though I did ask for examples of where this is the case. You provided two examples, neither of which demonstrated this was how things are done currently. Given your argument is from one of consistency, and mine is not, two examples out of thousands of bands is also too small a sample size to make any claims of consistency and yet the two examples given do not prove your claims!
So… asking me if I can provide any categories that show a consistent structure only demonstrates that we should use the logical naming of the existing categories - and in this case it appears to me that the original category added by Evrik makes the most sense. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of duplicating this thread, see the above: hundreds and hundreds of categories where "Members of band" is not "images of [band]" but only subcategories for the individual members by name. Literally never or almost never where it actually contains media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide me with examples? The ones you provided earlier do not show what you claim. Now you are saying there are hundreds and hundreds of categories, so if this is the case then I would appreciate it if you provided some categories (more than two would be helpful!) that demonstrate your claim. Also, if the category reads "Members of band", then that indicates that it shows members of the band - either in individual subcategories or all together in the category itself. This image, as I've said, shows members of X, so it would make a good deal of sense to place it into Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). I am unclear how this is not logical or appropriate. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered this: "In fact, take a look at Category:Musicians by musical group: almost always you will see only subcategories and almost never files. There are literally hundreds of examples. Does this not convince you that "Members of foo" is not used for images of the band at large? Try to find any examples where this is done. I can find hundreds where it's not." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, many do, but then I see supergroup ABBA has Category:Members of ABBA and this holds File:ABBA - TopPop 1974 1.png, File:ABBA - TopPop 1974 2.png, File:ABBA - TopPop 1974 3.png and many more groups shots of the band members. Same with Category:Members of AC/DC, Category:Members of the Allman Brothers Band, Category:Members of Deep Purple, Category:Members of Electric Light Orchestra and a raft of other major groups. Which means that there is no real consistency.
I would argue that as there is no real consistency, we should allow this image to be placed in Category:Members of X (musical group from the United States). However, I would be happy to raise this as a wider request on VP to clarify the structure. I am happy to go with consensus. I note that you are the only person arguing for this structure I have seen so far, though perhaps this is only because people who are interested have not had a chance to comment on a wider ranging discussion. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would argue that there is no consistency when it is consistent in 90%+? I would argue that is exactly what consistency is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are getting very upset. I will ask if the category structure is reasonable on VP. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now opened a broader discussion about band member category structure COMMONS:VP#Category structure for members of bands. I encourage participants in this discussion and at ANU Koavf, Evrik, A.Savin and Aafi (from COMMONS:ANU# User engaged in edit war, does not seem to understand category's purpose). - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, I appreciate your respectful discussion. Hopefully we can work out a solution to this that meets consensus. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:X,_1980.jpg&oldid=869014292"