Category talk:People
Add topicNote: Content depicting people can be put in categories and/or galleries which describe them, such as Category:Economists from the United States or Category:Albert Einstein.
- All categories named after a person should be included in the category People by name and sorted by their family name: [[Category:People by name|Family name, first or given name]] (or use {{DEFAULTSORT:}}), and remember: do not tag files with this category!
- At Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation wikis, if you see a link to File:Replace this image male.png or a similar "missing image" file, please upload a free-license image and replace the "File:" link on the wiki page.
See Commons:Category scheme People
Untitled comment
[edit]Is there any clear guideline on how to categorise in Wikicommons. It's a mess right now. For example, category:Physicists has a place in both category:People and category:scientists, but category:mathematicians has not. In the People category there is also a place for Conductors, Musicians and Composers, should they not be moved to another category, and have that category in the People category. Wikipedia has such guidelines, should we follow those? --Maarten van Vliet 12:18, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Proposed categories?
[edit]Can we have a category of people not looking at the camera or people with a transparent background? I think those categories would be really useful for grasphic designers, architects etc. Sweetie candykim (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
When you think of people do you only visualize naked ones?
[edit]Both this Category:People and the other one, Category:Homo sapiens use a naked couple as category's main picture. I wonder if you can only think of nude couples for both concepts, people and homo sapiens(?) Why don't you better use a picture of old and young men, women, girls and boys of different race/ethnic origins for the basic illustration (I mean Wikidata Infobox) of Category:People? 186.173.79.158 02:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata's decision, not ours. That's a Wikidata Infobox. But I think it's a reasonable decision. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree when it comes to the People cat. However, for the Homo sapiens cat it does seem reasonable, for instance because other animals are all pictured nude even though their morphology usually means that their genitals are not as exposed. To answer your question when it comes to the People cat: because you and nobody else changed it. You could create some collage of clothed people at different times of humanity such as the Stone Age and the present at different ages and then replace the image on Wikidata. Let me know if you did so because it would be great if somebody could do that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
What is a "historical people", aren't they just people? All past people are historical, so it isn't filling any clear educational purpose. It doesn't form a useful disambiguation purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. There is information about people in the past under Category:People by century. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete -- ReneeWrites (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is now a Disambiguation category. I suggest to keep it that way, add Category:People by century and remove Category:Historical persons. I am afraid that there will always be people who are searching for historical people (or persons) and then they get a page where they can click to the correct category. JopkeB (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree @JopkeB: , people will just populate the disambiguation category. I still feel that we are better to delete such antithetical categories. Plus ancient peoples has different connotations in the English language to historical peoples. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is always a risk, about whatever subject the disambituation category is. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is no longer a valid disambiguation page, it only has one term and that does not mean historical people. The cat serves no valid purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- But when we add Category:People by century then there are two. JopkeB (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is no longer a valid disambiguation page, it only has one term and that does not mean historical people. The cat serves no valid purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is always a risk, about whatever subject the disambituation category is. JopkeB (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree @JopkeB: , people will just populate the disambiguation category. I still feel that we are better to delete such antithetical categories. Plus ancient peoples has different connotations in the English language to historical peoples. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Moot | |||
| Actions | Delete this category, per Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Historic buildings. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 08:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||