Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Category talk:Women with blond hair

This cat is redundant to Category:Female blond hair; one of them should go. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose By name is for meta cats, not for images. --Foroa (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose renaming to "by name". "By name" can be created as a subcategory but this category should remain. --ŠJů (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: "Category:Women with blond hair by name" should be a meta category containing only subcategories named after women with blond hair. All uncategorized images of unidentified women with blond hair should be placed in "Category:Female blond hair". There is no point having both "Female blond hair" and "Women with blond hair", which is why the latter needs to be renamed. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a "by name" category for this? "By name" leads to a lot confusion and should be avoided whenever possible. Just make this a main category and move the images to Female blond hair. Or merge the two and start subcategorizing if you don't want images in it. Rocket000 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that another way to solve the issue is to do away with "Female blond hair" entirely and just use "Women with blond hair" to contain all the subcategories of named blonde women as well as uncategorized images. (I would suggest that we use "Women with blond hair" instead of "Female blond hair", which sounds a little odd.) A similar change will have to be made to all the "Male XYZ hair" categories, which should be renamed "Men with XYZ hair". Do we have consensus on this? — Cheers, JackLee talk 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support "Women with blond hair" is better. However, I'm wondering if we should use "Females with blond hair" instead since it's clearer that it includes children and infants (we don't have a "girls with blond hair" category and I don't think we need one, but with the current Female blond hair it seems girls are included, like this). Rocket000 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
If we opt for just one category, I'd rather use "Females with blond hair".  Docu  at 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"Females with blond hair" does that include also other mammals than humans? See Category:Female mammals Wouter (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No, "females" by itself in English is understood to refer to humans. Only in certain contexts do you need to clarify. Anyway, why just mammals? Lots of things can be female. Rocket000 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't a general idea how to treat these categories. I have only a minor notice: "Female blond hair" can be felt as intended for detailed photo of hair only, while "Females with blond hair" supposes a relation to a specific person or to the whole figure. Should we embody such distinction in categories or shouldn't? --ŠJů (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, if the photo doesn't illustrate the hair well then it doesn't need to be categorized in a hair category, right? Isn't that the purpose of these categories? Nevermind, I see what you're saying. Rocket000 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to think on it, but:
  • I agree with ŠJů: "females with xxx hair" is a category for pictures where the focus goes to the hair, not the person.
  • Apart from the red hair and maybe the blond, for most people, the hair changes (often) color, so we should take care with integration of categories, especially for the black and brown (what is brown ?) hair people.
  • We have to take even more care that some people will not get the idea that all "people by name" need to be subcategorised in a hair color subcat, so I would be reluctant to use by name subcats unless we have a more clear view.
So I think that we have to find better category names that make it clear that it is a rather exceptional cat, not a cat to be applied to everyone (in the same area, we could have cats with people with curled, straight, shaved, ... hair). Some sort of dangerous endless road. --Foroa (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
As the accent is on the color of hair, why not to make a subcategory under Category:Hair of for example "Colors of hair" => "Blond hair" Wouter (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The gender doesn't really matter if it's about hair, but I think (maybe) it was done as a way of subcategorizing a large category. There's already Hair by color (the parent or parent-parent cat of what we're discussing). Rocket000 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rocket000 that there is no need to create a new category as "Hair by color" already serves this purpose. I am happy with either "Female blond hair" or "Women with blond hair", so long as we can pick one and not have both. I also take Rocket000's point that "Female blond hair" may be better as it includes girls as well as women. We can advise editors not to put images of animals in the category in a usage note. (Anyway, is it usual to talk about "blond cats" or "blond dogs"? As far as I can see, no one has tried to place animal pictures here yet.)
Regarding Foroa's comment about "Hair by color" and its subcategories being exceptional, I'm not sure if it is really possible (or, indeed, particularly desirable) to stop editors from adding people to these categories on the basis of their hair colour. One way might be to put a usage note at the top of the main category, but to me the problem is how to define the "exceptional" nature of the category. Should it only contain images of people notable for their hair colour? If so, how should this notability be defined? Is Paris Hilton notable for being blonde? (Given her regular shenanigans, maybe!) Is Hillary Clinton? Is President Obama notable as a man with black hair? (Probably not!) It may be better to just have the properly named categories available and let editors exercise their own judgment. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Category:by name has to be a metacategory: this clearly is not. However, one can create a subcategory of this [[:Category:Woman with blond hair. In the meantime, I keep this category and decline the renaming. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus that this category should be merged into "Category:Female blond hair"? That was my impression from the discussion above. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For me, consensus was going to not move, and I declined this longstanding move request on an additional technical reason. But, Jacklee, make a new move request to check consensus for that. Cheers --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the consensus was not to move the category to "Category:Women with blond hair by name", but there was consensus that we should not have two categories called "Category:Women with blond hair" and "Category:Female blond hair". Will put another {{move}} tag on the category. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge into "Category:Female blond hair"Edit

There was no consensus to rename "Category:Women with blond hair" as "Category:Women with blond hair by name", but do we have consensus to merge it into "Category:Female blond hair"? As Túrelio pointed out above, we should not have both "Category:Women with blond hair" and "Category:Female blond hair". — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  Agree. Viewed from category tree building, there is no objection to merge Women with blond hair into its only parent category Female blond hair. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  Agree. --Foroa (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  Agree. Rocket000 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  Agree.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Return to "Women with blond hair" page.