Last modified on 3 August 2012, at 07:31

Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young women

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Young womenEdit

Just to be 100% clear. I am proposing the following name changes

  • Rename Young women to Adolescent girls (yes this will require alot of re- categorizations that I will do.)

The following categories are also included in this discussion as they will have a new definition, but will not have a name change.:

The way these categories are set up, especially when it comes to the way the "by age" subcategories are set up, the proper image locations are very confusing. (see this previous cfd as example) We can easily find an image of a 16 year old categories right next to an image of a 30+ year old in a “Young Women” category.

As such, I am proposing that Category:Young women be renamed to Category:Adolescent girls and that all 4 pages have the following age definitions listed.

Definitions

1. Girls (birth – 13 (puberty))
2. Adolescent girls (13 - 17 years) instead of "Young Women"
3. Women (or perhaps Adult Women) (18 - 59 years)
4. Old women (60+ years)

I am using, but slightly modifying, the Physical stages of human life section found on the Human development (biology) wikipedia page. This will also match how w:Category:Images of young people describe "Young people" as that catrgory fall into Category:Childhood and Category:Adolescence

Obviously this can be modified with input from other editors. My logic on using Adolescent girls (13 - 17 years) instead of Adolescent girls (13 - 19 years) is that some images (such as nude images) need to be denoted as "Adult" aged at 18 instead of "Adolescent" at 18. Since this is a big change, I didn’t want to just jump in a do it without a concenus. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good initiative. I had always some reservations for "young women" as this is very culture specific. The most important thing is that we agree on the definitions and document them properly. We could use Women as "top level category", the others as specialised sub categories. --Foroa (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Foroa that using Women as "top level category", the others as specialized sub- categories is best.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since it seems that no one by seem interested in making comments either way, I am going to start to make these changes. However, since I am really worried about other editors being very upset about the changes, I'm going to do it very slowly to see if I get some reverts or objection. Then the discussion may start or it may simply be a good idea, so that is why no one is objecting. To start with I am going only add the definitions to the pages to keep more images from being added and to propose the rename of the "Young Women" Cat. Yes some, if not most of the Category:Young women images, will end up in Category:Women and not in Category:Adolescent girls, but the new Category:Adolescent girls is what is needed to be created out of Category:Young women After waiting the two week period (per the "Move" template) I will start making the image moves.
However, for now I will wait and see what other editor think--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
While documentiong, it might be the right moment to look at the male side too.
Definitions
1. birth – 13 (puberty): Girls - Boys
2. 13 - 17 years: (instead of "Young xx") Adolescent girls - Adolescent boys
3. 18 - 59 years: Women - Men
4. 60+ years: Old women - Old men
5: Children: 0 + 13 ? --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, however, I kind of want to take this slow. If this works I will also do the boys afterwords.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about Category:26 year old men (also transcluded from Categories for discussion). It was deleted as I didn't put a 2nd image in it ;) (or whatever).

Back to this thread: Do you plan to these subcategories for women by age too? -- User:Docu at 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually already read Category:26 year old men. If I understand your question (which I'm not sure I do) I had only planned to use the Human development (biology) wikipedia to define what an "Adolescent" (13 - 17 years) and "Women" (18 - 59 years) is. This is mainly due to the fact that currently there is a "Young Women" category that is very arbitrary. Even "Women" can be arbitrary by culture. So many of those images are in both categories. “Young” is the main issue I had. However, I had ‘’’not’’’ planned to break it down so far as "26 year old women". I hope that answers your question.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't primarily think of the break-down, but do you plan to determine the age (and categorize by that) or by stage of human life (as the categories are named, and select the category by that)? What do you do with images were neither can be determined clearly? -- User:Docu at 07:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
All I can do is my best when it comes to images were neither can be determined clearly. I am going by the assumtion that if the image was in any of the subcatagories of category:women that the image should be there. After that it is up to the new uploader to make that determination.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In old days the distinction was the marriageable age and the marry. That girl/woman was named: Maid!haabet 20:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes this is true. However that would put us back in the same place. What is "marriageable age". Some places it's 14 (middle east for example) and some it 21. We need a set age, and using the Human development (biology) wikipedia page give us that.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made the moves, so I am closing this discussion, as it is no longer relevant, and opening Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/05/Category:Young men in order to make the same changes to Category:young men.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Can we re-open this. Sorry, I must have missed your (non-)answer above. Which is your primary criterion? -- User:Docu at 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't make myself clear. Here goes again. First if an age was in the description I went by that age. If an image was also inside and subcategory of "Women" or "Porn" while being in the "young Women" cat, I put it in with "Women". This took care of about 75% of the images. Then if an image was in the "Teenager" or "adolescence" category I put it in with Adolescent girls. This took care of about 90% of the images. Of those 10% I subtracted the DOB of the person (most had 19XX birth cats or I found it on the Wikipida page) from the year that the photo was taken. Almost, all the images fell into those setups except maybe 10. Since I didn’t upload the image I included it into "adolescence girls” by default. I figured that the uploaded knew more then I did. It wasn't actually very hard to sort them out. Most were extremely obvious as to which they belonged to. Most of the images were in the 25+ age of 16-18 year olds I hope that answers your question--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Overall this sounds good. I wasn't too convinced about the result here, e.g. this. Many b&w photographs seem to come from events of this organization, which seems to be for ages 14-25. -- User:Docu at 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome to make any changes you wish. I have decided that I'm not going to work within wikmeadia anymore, so if you fell something needs to be changed, by all means, change it or it wont get done.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really feel like reverting all these as the general structure seems reasonable, but I don't quite see how we could leave these in there. Maybe the initial category should be kept for images we can't easily sort. -- User:Docu at 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why no Category:Mid-aged women? Pitke (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You ask about Category:Young and mid-aged adult women (18-59 yo) or about Category:Mid-aged women (30-59 yo)? (40-59 yo)? or Category:Young adult women (18-39) and Category:Mid-aged women (40-59 yo)?--Diwas (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Or redirect all girls- and women-categories to Category:Human females, Category:Human female children, Category:Human adolescent females, Category:Human young adult females, Category:Human mid-aged females and Category:Human old females.--Diwas (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Category:Adolescent girls" should be for females in adolescence -- losing the appearance of girls, but not yet the full appearance of adult women. It is not an exact age, and I think it inappropriate to try to define it as such. (If you want strict chronological age, something like "teenaged women" (or "female teenagers", whatever) would cover 13-19. There's some overlap, but certainly a good bit of difference. Adolescence may be clearly apparent before the teens, and full womanhood before the end of the teens.) The same goes for similar male categories. We also have the problem that some images were put into the "adolescent" category simply because they were in the earlier "young women" category -- IMO highly inappropriately, since women in their mid 20s may often be commonly referred to as "young women", but are clearly far past adolescence. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know this is an old discussion, and I don't really have a strong opinion either way (the current format seems to be working just fine), but I'm basically here to inquire about a couple of things. #1: Is it still really necessary to have the list of "definitions" of girls, adolescent girls, women, etc, listed at the tops of all the respective category pages? The "men"/"boys" categories seem to be working just fine without a key list explaining what boys, adolescent boys, men, etc are. #2: I'm not sure if this topic is essentially closed or what, but I believe this format will/should be implemented on both the "men" and "women" categories the same way. If we still need tags/definitions at the tops of all of the "girls"/"old women" category pages then the tags/definitions should also be included at the tops of all the "men"/"boys" categories. I guess what I'm basically saying is: It's time we either take down all the condescending definitions and tags cluttering up the tops of the "girls"/"old women" category pages or else we need to add them to the tops of the "men"/"boys" pages to generate more discussion and get this issue resolved once and for all. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The main actor, ARTEST4ECHO has been attacked quite strongly because some people where quite upset that he moved their "Young women" in Women or Adolescent women, so he quit working on Commons in the middle of the boys operations. Now he is back but works mainly on Latter-day Church related items I believe.
In understand that you don't like the clutter, but with hundreds of contributors passing by every now and then (mostly because they uploaded a series of images) and with more than 2 million of categories, we need some documentation. In this case, I guess the best solution would be a template that includes women and boys (and is multilingual). Those cats exist equally in boys/women/Girls by country categories. So feel free to clean up and to remove CFD links. Thank you anyway. --Foroa (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I didn't realize there had been some contention with regards to the implementation of the changes. From what I see, the "Girls", "Adolescent girls", "Women" and "Old women" sub-cats all appear to be in use, "Young women" redirects to "Women" and the definitions have been at the tops of pages for over two years, so I wasn't detecting any obvious controversy with regards to said changes. Granted, we may have "hundreds" of contributors passing by, but they don't appear to be interested in this discussion (we've only had a handful of comments in the last 2+ years and there had been no comments for almost a year prior to my comment yesterday). And granted, we may have "millions" of categories, but I'd maintain that categories such as "girls"/"women"/"boys"/"men" are top-tier categories that are some of the most prominent we have (basically, any picture of a human being would fall into one of the eight basic categories currently being used and/or the respective sub-categories contained therein: "boys", "girls", "adolescent boys", "adolescent girls", "men", "women", "old men", "old women"). If we believe that all of the various tags/definitions are really necessary at the tops of all of the "girls"/"women" categories (as previously stated, all of the "boys"/"men" categories that I've seen appear to be working just fine without them), and we really believe we need to keep the discussion going for another two years (or more), then I maintain that we need to add these various tags/definitions to all of the "boys"/"men" categories that correspond to the dozens of "girls"/"women" categories the tags are currently placed on, in order to generate more discussion and get this apparently dead issue resolved. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Commons is some strange place. There are hundreds of people digging their burrows so they can drop (and find back) their images. As soon as they see a category structure that seems suitable, they copy or extrapolate it to suit their purposes. So very few people here document or read category documentation. Just working like in a nest of ants. So, since we changed the contested category structure, people added hundreds if not thousands of similarly structured sub-trees. There are about 600000 new cats per year on Commons and we have to rename only a few percent; so to speak, Commons is growing organically. So if this CFD is closed or remains open doesn't really matter: the new structure caught on in a couple of weeks or months, got copied on the boys sides and grew a whole web. If you would like to change it structure now, I guess you would have several months of work. --Foroa (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is why I'm not proposing a change in structure (as previously stated, I actually believe the current break-down works and I would say so if I didn't). My central point is that, as of now, the issue appears closed, but if not, then we should apply the same format/tags to both the female and corresponding male pages equally (there are enough confusing inconsistencies/duplicate categories, etc, here already without having discrepancies in general top-tier categories such as boys/girls, men/women). Despite the fact that this two-year-old discussion appears to have been basically dead in the water for a year, I'm not necessarily advocating that it must be closed. I'm simply proposing one of two options #1: It should be closed as resolved, or else #2: The same disambig "definitions" and discussion "tags" leading to this discussion should be placed on all of the corresponding "boys"/"men" articles the same way. I'd be willing to perform these tasks myself, but I'm just trying to get some answers here before I waste my time adding definition "keys" and discussion "tags" to all of the adjacent "male" pages, only to have an admin come along a week later and decide the whole thing really is resolved for all intents and purposes. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Implemented but need some documentation clean up. --Foroa (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)